Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)

RUNCORN-WlDNES BRIDGE BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday,14th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Gliders (Solo Flying)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether the minimum age limit of 14 years for solo flying in gliders will now be raised.

The Parliamentary Secretary to die Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): Yes, Sir. The minimum age is to be raised to 16 years.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon.Gentleman aware that his answer will remove anxiety caused by fatal accidents involving 14 year-olds doing solo gliding; and that this step to make the practice uniform with that in the Air Training Corps, where the age limit is 16, will be greatly welcomed?

Customs Airports (Cost)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the cost of maintaining and operating State-owned Customs airports in the United Kingdom in 1951–52; what this cost is now estimated to be in 1952–53; and what is the estimated costin 1953–54.

Mr. Profumo: The net cost of maintaining and operating State-owned or requisitioned customs airports in the United Kingdom, including air traffic control,

telecommunications and meteorological services, but excluding charges on capital, was in 1951–52 approximately £ 1,605,000. The estimated net costs for 1952–53 and 1953–54 are £ 1,375,000 and £ 1,200,000 respectively.

Members (Information)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation why he is unable to send to individual Members of Parliament, who are sufficiently interested to request them, copies of information hand-outs issued by his Department regarding new scheduled services agreed by him.

Mr. Profumo: The needs of Members of Parliament are provided for by the Central Office of Information placing two copies of all Press notices in the Library of the House. In view of the extra expense which would be involved in sending Press notices to individual Members, I hope the House will regard the existing arrangement as adequate.

Mr. Beswick: Surely the notices in the Library are not sufficient for the committee work which is necessarily carried on in relation to aviation? As the extra expense is a matter of l½d. for a stamp, will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?

Mr. Profumo: I have looked at the matter carefully. My Department sends copies of its Press notices to the offices of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Conservative Party Research Department, and these sources should give hon. Members all the information they want without our having to take any further action.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any reputable commercial firm would be only too willing to send information about its activities to hon. Members who are interested? I again urge him to look into the matter.

Mr. Colegate: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that most of us get so many papers that we shall be very grateful not to get any more?

Independent Operators (Service Applications)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many applications from independent operators have now


been submitted to the Advisory Council under the new directive; how many have been refused, and how many have been recommended by that body; how many have been finally refused and agreed, respectively, by himself; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those services which he has agreed to points outside the United Kingdom, giving the name of the operator, the period of the agreement and the aircraft type with which the service will be operated.

Mr. Profumo: One hundred and sixty-five applications from independent operators have been received by the Air Transport Advisory Council since the revised terms of reference were issued to the Council in July last year. Of these the Council have recommended 35 for rejection and 90 for approval; 12 applications were withdrawn before being considered by the Council. My right hon. Friend has rejected 26 applications, conditionally approved 66 and finally approved nine. Seven applications were withdrawn after the Council had made their recommendations.
I am sending the hon. Member a list of applications conditionally and finally approved, giving the details he asked for.

Mr. Beswick: If I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I propose to put this Question down on Monday each week in order to get this information, will he not agree that it would be better to send me a copy of the information in the first place?

Mr. Profumo: All I can say to that is that I hope the hon. Member will be careful about how many Questions of this sort he puts down. Having been in my office, he knows very well that this sort of question requires a very great deal of research by the Department concerned. Because of the increasing numbers of applications, we are hard pressed to grant them within a short period.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Why is the Ministry of Civil Aviation so anxious to hide this information? When we had a debate on the change of policy, the Minister was very proud of the alteration which had taken place, but now it is very difficult to obtain information. Cannot the information be placed before the House in some regular way?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think there is any difficulty in getting information. I can assure hon. Members on all sides of the House that we have no desire to hide what we regard as a very good policy. Most of this information is published in the newspapers from time to time, and my right hon. Friend and I are only too willing to give such information. I was merely asking for caution in making requests for information when the Department is under so much pressure.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the information be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Profumo: The information for which the hon. Gentleman asks is contained in a schedule such as I have in my hand, which is very lengthy and complicated. If the hon. Gentleman will look at what I am proposing to send him, he can decide whether that is sufficient. I am prepared to place two copies in the Library, if the hon. Member desires it.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary being slightly ridiculous about this? Would not all this be quite unnecessary if he would keep hon. Members up-to-date, circularising not all hon. Members but those who have sufficient interest to ask for the information?

Passenger Service Charge

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the revenue that is now estimated to accrue from the passenger handling charge during the financial year 1952–53.

Mr. Profumo: The estimated yield of the passenger service charge for the 11 months of 1952–53 during which the charge was in force is £ 185,000.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is it proposed to continue the charge in its present form or to pass it on in increased landing fees?

Mr. Profumo: At the present moment it is intended to continue with this system, but my right hon. Friend hopes very much that it may be possible to find some way in which it is not so troublesome to the passengers as they are actually leaving the airport.

REFUGEES (ORGANISATIONS)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement about the overlapping organisations dealing with refugee migration problems in different parts of the world.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): No, Sir. I should prefer to await the outcome of the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which will take place at the end of April.

Major Beamish: Can my hon. Friend say when he is likely to have a report on this matter? Is he aware that, since I.R.O. came to an end, the United Nations and ourselves and several of the other free countries appear to have been to some extent at cross-purposes on this very important subject? May I press him to put himself in a position to be able to make a firm statement to the effect that we shall be able to work together in these matters before very long?

Mr. Nutting: I certainly hope that any overlapping which may exist will be eliminated. I hope that the Advisory Committee, which is meeting at the end of April, may make recommendations to that effect. After consideration, I must admit that, in my opinion, the overlapping is more apparent than real, but it may be that, as a result of the growth of this problem, particularly in relation to Germany, some additional co-ordinating arrangements may prove to be necessary in the future.

BELGIUM (BRITISH PRESS ARTICLES)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he deemed it necessary to apologise to the Belgian Government for articles appearing recently in the British Press; and what communications he addressed to the British newspapers concerned.

Mr. Nutting: After a study had been made of articles about His Majesty the King of the Belgians and the Belgian Royal Family in certain sections of the British Press, to which the Belgian Government had drawn the attention of Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's

Ambassador at Brussels was instructed to inform the Belgian Government that Her Majesty's Government, while they had no control over the newspapers in question, deplored the publication of articles considered to be insulting to the Head of the Belgian State and the Belgian Royal Family, and dissociated themselves entirely from them.
No communication on this subject was addressed to any British newspaper.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What is the point of making apologies to foreign Governments on behalf of British newspapers if the Government have not the courage to inform the newspapers concerned of the apology which they are making on their behalf? Is it not tending to establish a dangerous precedent if a British Government have to apologise for everything that appears in the British Press to which a foreign Government takes exception, and do foreign Governments apologise to the British Government for what appears in their papers?

Mr. Nutting: No question of an apology for the British Press arises; and, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not this experience rather add to the case for a properly constituted Press Council?

Mr. Nutting: That is not a matter for me.

GERMANY (ARRESTED NAZI)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he gave to those appearing for the High Commissioner at the hearing of the petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of Dr. Naumann regarding any application that might be made by counsel appearing for Dr. Naumann to interview their client.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The instructions given by the High Commissioner to his legal adviser were referred to and approved by my right hon. Friend. These instructions were that any application by counsel for Dr. Naumann to interview their client should be opposed. At the first habeas corpus hearing, however, the High Commissioner's Legal Adviser suggested, on


my right hon. Friend's authority, that Mr. Scott Henderson, but not the other defence lawyers, might be allowed to see his client, but Mr. Scott Henderson did not accept this.

Mr. Irvine: Does not the Minister of State think, in the light of events, that if judicial proceedings of this character are to take place in occupied territory it is regrettable that this restraint should be placed upon the right of a petitioner to contact counsel who can speak his own language? Does he not regret the whole thing, having regard to the effect on public opinion and on the justice of the case?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the light of events, when cast upon this matter, will show that the decision of my right hon. Friend was abundantly justified.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the certificate originally produced by counsel to the respondent in these habeas corpus proceedings did not distinguish at all between English counsel and German counsel, and was a flat veto on any of the applicants seeing any of their counsel of any nationality?

Mr. Lloyd: That may be so, but, in fact, it was suggested that if Mr. Scott Henderson wanted to see his clients he could do so.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been drawn to a report published in certain German newspapers that the Allies handed over Dr. Naumann and his associates to the German authorities because of insufficient evidence being available for a prosecution on their part?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have heard of such suggestions, but they are quite untrue and inaccurate. I do not think I can do better than invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to pay some regard to what the German Chancellor said about that article.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

Strategic Materials (Shipment)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that, while Her Majesty's Government have taken steps

to tighten the existing system of controls over shipments of strategic materials to China, they will not tolerate any stopping of, or interference with, British merchant ships trading with Chinese Communist ports.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The position remains, as my right hon. Friend made clear in the debate on 5th February, that British ships on their lawful occasions will be protected.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister specify what steps he has taken to protect British shipping in this matter, in how many cases these steps have been applied, and with what results?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is the practice, nor is it desirable, to disclose operational instructions which are sent to units of Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Harold Davies: Can the Minister assure the House that there has been no extension of the policy as put forward by the President of the Board of Trade on 19th June, 1951, when he told the House that there was no intention of a total embargo being imposed upon China? Is he aware that in the last two months we have lost orders for £ 10 million worth of machinery, £ 500,000 worth of tinplate and £ 2 million worth of drugs as a result of this silly policy?

Mr. Lloyd: There is not a total embargo. The policy which has been carried out is that to which Her Majesty's Government were committed on 18th May, 1951, pursuant to the Resolution of the United Nations.

Mr. S. Silverman: While no doubt the United Kingdom is bound by that Resolution of the United Nations, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is nothing in that Resolution to justify the extension of the definition of strategic material to cover everything which is so designated by the Battle Act?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the Resolution which would imply a total embargo on China.

Diplomatic Representation

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far negotiations have proceeded with the


People's Government of China, with a view to the raising, on a basis of reciprocity, the status of the diplomatic representatives of the two countries to that of ambassador.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The discussions with the Chinese Government on the exchange of Ambassadors rest with the reply given by Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in Peking on 17th June, 1950, to inquiries from the Chinese.

Mr. Irvine: Will the Minister say whether the Resolution by the United Nations declaring China to be an aggressor is an obstacle to the renewal of the peace negotiations, and if so, will he bear in mind the fact that there is extensive moderate and responsible public opinion in this country which believes that Chinese intervention was provoked by the advance to the Manchurian border of the United Nations forces under General MacArthur?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member's supplementary question has raised a number of controversial matters, into which I will not go, but the position with regard to the diplomatic status of the representatives of the two countries remains as on 17th June, 1950.

13. Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of reference of the British diplomatic mission in Peking.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on 15th October last.

Mr. Donnelly: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat that answer?

Hon. Members: Why?

PERSIA (ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECT)

Mr. Mott-Raddyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what indication the Persian authorities have given as to when the preliminary investigation of the charges against Captain Navarra, who has been in prison since November, 1952, is likely to be completed; and what legal assistance has been made available for him.

Mr. Nutting: No charge has yet been made against Mr. Navarra and the Persian authorities have not indicated when the preliminary investigation will be completed. Representations have been made by the Swiss Legation at Tehran that Mr. Navarra's lengthy detention without trial is contrary to the generally accepted practice of civilised States. These have produced no result, save that the Persian authorities have promised to inquire whether the period of investigation can be shortened.
They have also permitted Mr. Navarra to be visited on 5th March by a member of the Swiss Legation, who reports that although very depressed he is in good health and is allowed to receive food, tobacco and reading matter from his relatives. A suitable lawyer has been engaged for his defence.

Mr. Stokes: May we know which prison he is in?

Mr. Nutting: I do not know, but I will inform the right hon. Gentleman.

WAR MATERIALS (EXPORTS TO SPAIN)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what quantities and values of war material have been exported to Spain during the past year.

Mr. Nutting: Since my reply to the hon. Member on 22nd October, 1952, military material to the value of some £ 2,500 has been sent to Spain from the United Kingdom. In the category of common-use items," four Bristol freighter aircraft for civil purposes have been exported to Spain at a value of approximately £ 300,000. Licences have also been approved for the export of a quantity of wireless receivers and transmitters for aircraft and for 15 items of marine radar at a value of approximately £ 40,000.

Mr. Jeger: In view of the almost derisory amount of material that has been sent, does the Joint Under-Secretary think that this gesture of appeasement and. wooing of Fascist Franco was really worth while?

Mr. Nutting: There is no question of appeasement or wooing. The export of


these materials has been immensely beneficial in two ways. The first is that it has helped United Kingdom firms which are generally concerned with exports of many other kinds to maintain a position in the Spanish market, and it has also been to our advantage to dispose of this material, for a good deal of which Spain is almost our only market.

Mr. Ernest Davies: How can the hon. Gentleman say that when the amount is so small? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when I raised this matter on the Adjournment six months ago, he justified this change of policy on economic grounds? Would he not agree that the political loss has not been compensated by material gain?

Mr. Nutting: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion at all. This may well develop into a valuable market, and we wish to get a foot in it.

CHINESE NATIONALIST TROOPS (TRAININGS

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the agreement recently come to between him and the United States Government for consultation on all aspects of Far Eastern policy, he will make urgent representations to that Government with regard to the unwisdom of training Chinese Nationalist troops in amphibian warfare, which can only denote a possible attack on the Chinese mainland and prejudice the efforts of both Governments to reach an armistice in Korea.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. I see no cause for Her Majesty's Government to intervene in this matter. I do not accept the implications of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question.

Mr. Shinwell: If the allegations contained in the Question are accurate, namely, that Chinese Nationalist troops in Formosa are being trained in amphibian warfare by American officers, why is there not the consultation which was promised some time ago by the Prime Minister in all matters relating to Far Eastern policy?

Mr. Lloyd: This training has been going on for some time. The President of the United States has said that his new orders to the Seventh Fleet did not

involve any aggressive intent on the part of the United States. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly pointed out that in their view few adventures could be less fruitful or successful than the launching of these Nationalist troops on the mainland of China. I think the views of Her Majesty's Government are perfectly well known.

Mr. Shinwell: What I want to know — and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be good enough to address his mind to this question— is whether there was any consultation about this matter? Is it not obvious that there must be some aggressive intent, otherwise these troops would not be trained by American officers?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say whether or not there was consultation on this specific matter about the training of these specific troops—

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know.

Mr. Lloyd: — but the general relationship between Chiang Kai-shek's troops and possible activities on the mainland of China is well known.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although Minister of State in the Foreign Office and largely responsible for foreign affairs, is not able to tell the House whether there was consultation on this matter, although consultation on all matters affecting foreign policy in the Far East was promised by the Prime Minister some time ago?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question on the Order Paper did not ask me whether there had been consultation about this matter, but whether Her Majesty's Government would make representations with regard to the matter, and I said, "No, Sir." Regarding the other matter, I have definitely given a clear and honest answer, according to my own knowledge of the matter.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Seventh Fleet was withdrawn in order to enable this attack to be made, and that the attack cannot possibly be made without considerable American help, not only in training but in materials? Ought not this matter to be raised in the United Nations, as contrary to U.N. policy?

Mr. Lloyd: This matter was debated in the House.

PRESIDENT TITO'S VISIT (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with Marshal Tito, President of Yugoslavia.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Prime Minister will make a statement in answer to this Question at the end of Questions.

O.E.E.C. (COUNCIL MEETING)

Mr. Gaitskell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The recent meeting of the Council of O.E.E.C. was described by the Secretary General of the Organisation as one of the most successful in its history; a judgment in which H.M. Government concur. A statement has already been made to the House about our decision to make certain relaxations of our import restrictions and to increase the tourist allowance. The German Government followed this lead. The Council recommended that other member countries, and particularly those in a creditor position, should make a special effort to increase still further their liberalisation measures.
It was decided to continue the operation of the E.P.U. for a further year from 1st July, 1953, with any modifications that might be agreed. This decision was subject to the proviso that the question might be re-examined at any time before the 30th June, 1954, if any Member country felt that this was necessary to enable progress to be made towards a system of freer trade and payments, including convertibility of currencies.
The Council welcomed the initiative taken by the U.K. in presenting their views on these matters, and decided that arrangements should be made for studying how and under what conditions an orderly transition from the present form of the European Payments Union to a wider multilateral system of trade, payments and credit can be achieved.

Mr. Gaitskell: While thanking the Chancellor for that statement, may I ask him two questions? First of all, was it made clear when the announcement was made about the lifting of restrictions here, that we would not return to full liberalisation until we had regained the £ 100 million of gold which is still outstanding in our debt to E.P.U.? Secondly, does the Chancellor expect that some of these creditor countries, in particular Belgium, will soon take action to increase imports so as to relieve strain on the Union? Thirdly, may we take it that no independent action on convertibility will now be taken by Her Majesty's Government, but that the matter will be proceeded with only with the concurrence of other nations in the E.P.U.?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first point is that we certainly made it plain that we intended to try our very best to earn back our £ 200 million debt, and also to recover the £ 100 million of gold from E.P.U. We made that clear. On the second point, about creditor countries, I find it difficult to give an answer on behalf of another Government, but I can say that there were indications that the other creditor countries, including Belgium, are ready to look at their position again with a view to following the lead of the United Kingdom. I do not think it would be unfair to the Governments concerned to say that.
In regard to convertibility, the position remains as it has just been expressed quite sincerely to the House; namely, that there are certain pre-conditions that must be fulfilled and which concern not only our own internal position but the position of strength which we are in, and the position and the pattern of world trade. There is certainly no question of making a move towards convertibility, either before consultation has taken place and we have the views of the European Governments, or before the pre-conditions are fulfilled.

Mr. Nabarro: Could my right hon. Friend reconcile his statement in regard to the progressive liberalisation of Western European trade with the fact that France has announced in the last 48 hours a severe curtailment of imports, particularly coal, from this country, together with a number of manufactured goods?

Mr. Butler: Yes, of course I am well aware of that statement. I am also aware that in the statement the French Minister for Economic Affairs was kind enough to pay tribute to the example we have given. I agree that it would have been pleasanter if the tribute had been accompanied by action of a slightly different character. Nevertheless I am satisfied that these measures were not designated with a desire to hurt the United Kingdom, and I am satisfied from close examination that they will not do us infinite harm. However, any measure of this sort which goes back on liberalisation is to be regretted.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Chancellor say that the action taken by France is in opposition to the suggestions made by the meeting of the Members of the O.E.E.C.?

Mr. Butler: It is quite clear that one of the resolutions passed by the Council definitely requested the French Government to proceed to a further measure of liberalisation, and to that extent it is disappointing to see this move.

Mr. Boothby: Is not this action by the French Government an argument in favour of the closest association of this country with the Coal and Steel Pool at the earliest practicable moment?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the fact that, in view of the French deficit in their balance of payments, it was inevitable that they would take steps to restrict their imports, and does not this show, too, that the real need in E.P.U. is for a considerably greater extension of credit in relation to gold, so that we do not get continual chopping and changing and import restrictions being imposed and lifted?

Mr. Butler: It is quite clear that Her Majesty's Government understand the reasons, as described by the right hon. Gentleman, which prompted the French Government to make these cuts; and, of course, any step that restores the economy of a country should be welcomed by all. In the case of the future of E.P.U., there are some schools which say that it should be softer and some which say that it should be harder, so I think we had better steer a course, as we are doing, between those two.

DECEPTION ISLAND (CHILEAN REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affarrs whether he will make a statement on the representations which have been received by the United Kingdom Government from the Government of Chile with regard to Deception Island.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In a memorandum dated 24th March the Chilean Government have again requested the restoration of the hut dismantled by the Falkland Islands authorities on 16th February.
It is the natural wish of Her Majesty's Government that the Chilean Government's action at Deception Island in January should not impair the generally friendly relations between the two countries. They cannot, however, regard the Chilean memorandum as holding out a prospect of a mutually satisfactory solution, and the Chilean Government are being so informed.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether any representations have been received from the Argentine Government on this matter since it was last before the House?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a very different matter from the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Henderson: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer it?

PRISONERS OF WAR, KOREA(SCREENING)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the original reason for the screening of Chinese and North Korean prisoners of war by the United Nations Command.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is explained in paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of the White Paper, Korea No. 1 of 1952 (Command 8596).

BRITISH PROPERTY, ROME (DAMAGE)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the disorders in Rome on 25th March as a result of which


the British Council Library was burned and the British European Airways Corporation's booking office damaged.

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. I am informed that a party of students entered the Library of the British Embassy Information Office and, after destroying newspapers and scattering petrol, set fire to the room. The Library is situated on British Council premises. Little damage was caused, thanks to the courageous behaviour of the staff on duty, who were molested but not seriously hurt, and to the prompt arrival of the fire brigade. A smaller attack was made immediately afterwards on the offices of British European Airways, apparently by the same gang. One student was arrested in the Library, and 14 further arrests have been made since.
Her Majesty's Embassy received a spontaneous expression of regret from the Italian Government and have been assured that the arrested students will in due course be tried. More effective protection for British Council and British European Airways premises has been promised. Her Majesty's Government deplore this act of irresponsible vandalism and have reserved the right to claim compensation for the damage caused, and demanded that those responsible shall be punished.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could my hon. Friend say whether the Italian Government have admitted liability for subsequent compensation?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. I do not think that any question of admission of liability can arise until an inquiry has taken place into whether there was negligence on the part of the Italian authorities concerned.

SUDAN (GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S COMMISSION)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement regarding the circumstances which led Her Majesty's Government to nominate Dardiri Mohamed Osman to the Sudan Governor-General's Commission in place of Mohamed Hassan Diab who was one of the two original Sudan nominees.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I informed the House on 11th March, Her Majesty's

Government have throughout taken the view that Sudanese wishes should prevail as regards the Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission. When I was in Khartoum I discussed the question with the leaders of the four political parties. Those who had supported Mohamed Hassan Diab said that they were prepared to accept Dardiri Mohamed Osman to break the deadlock and to avoid further delay in holding the elections. It was made clear that in any event the matter is subject to review by the Sudanese Parliament when elected.
In view of this development Her Majesty's Government decided to accept the nomination of Dardiri Mohamed Osman. This was done and the Governor-General's Commission has now been appointed. The way is clear for the appointment of the Electoral Commission and the holding of elections.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: While appreciating that this is principally a matter for the Sudanese, does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that as recently as 11th March he informed the House that no single vote had been cast for Dardiri Mohamed Osman as one of the two Sudanese representatives on the Governor-General's Commission?

Mr. Lloyd: Dardiri was not on the original list of candidates put forward for this position.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Officers (Power of Entry)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Food how many officers employed by his Department have power to enter premises without production of a justice's warrant.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): None may so enter private premises but 575 are empowered to enter and inspect food undertakings.

Coronation (Roasting Ceremonies)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food why sheep-roasting is forbidden during the Coronation celebrations when ox-roasting is permitted.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food (1) whether he is aware that a Coronation public roasting ceremony has been carried out on the village green at Hallow,


Worcestershire, since the days of Elizabeth I and even earlier; that the population of the village is insufficient to justify public roasting of an ox or deer; that the regional officer of his Department has refused to allow the public roasting of a sheep on 2nd June, 1953; and whether, in the interests of Coronation tradition and ceremonial in rural England, he will give a special dispensation to allow the yeomen and residents of Hallow to roast a sheep, publicly, on 2nd June, 1953, on the village green;
(2) what regulations restrict or prohibit the public roasting of a sheep, or calf, or pig as part of Coronation festivities; and whether he will permit these animals to be used as an alternative to an ox or a deer where the village population is insufficient to justify an ox or deer being roasted or where other local circumstances make a sheep, or calf, or pig a desirable and economical alternative.

Major Lloyd George: I am not prepared to extend these arrangements to animals other than oxen for the reasons already stated in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 28th January. Orders governing the obtaining and slaughtering of animals for human consumption are The Livestock (Sales) Order, The Pigs (Sales) Order, The Livestock (Restriction on Slaughtering) Order and The Import of Goods (Control) Order.

Mr. Dodds: But does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that most people think it is fantastic that a small community can roast an ox but are forbidden to roast a sheep; and in view of the fact that some people think that this is another classical example of privilege, will he not reconsider it?

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the traditionalist elements in rural Worcestershire and elsewhere will deeply regret his decision in this matter, especially as in the majority of cases a pig or sheep or calf has been offered as a donation to the Coronation Committee, and would he not, therefore, reconsider this matter?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will realise that if these arrangements were extended the demand would be very much greater, and in the present supply condition could not be contemplated.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that this greater tenderness for sheep than for oxen has not been carried out by the Government at the instigation and on the insistence of the Government Chief Whip?

Mr. Boothby: In the absence of sheep, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider inaugurating a national campaign for the Coronation for the roasting of herrings?

Mr. J Hynd: Will the Minister consider letting us have a real holiday on that occasion by closing the abattoirs and arranging for the animals to be slaughtered in public, as well?

Sweets

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to alleviate the shortage of sweets in Swindon and district at the end of March.

Major Lloyd George: I have made special inquiries and am satisfied that there is no general shortage in Swindon and district.

Mr. Reid: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I have had reports, some of which I have passed on to him, which show that wholesale dealers are unable to supply sweets to many of the retailers in Swindon?

Major Lloyd George: I would point out that when changing from a completely controlled market the pattern of distribution takes some considerable time to settle down. The actual consumption overall throughout the country today has not come up to the figure we anticipated when we started de-rationing. Arrangements were made, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, to give sufficient raw materials to manufacturers to get them over what everybody knew would be an intense demand in the first few weeks, and the amount given would certainly have been sufficient to meet the initial shock.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we are very suspicious about his sources of information on this matter; that these complaints about shortages of sweets, and more specifically of chocolate, appear to come


from all parts of the country; and is he not getting his information that there is no shortage from the very few who have a vested interest in wanting de-control?

Major Lloyd George: There are other people who have a vested interest in getting more sugar. There is no doubt at all that there is a not unnatural desire on the part of many manufacturers to get more sugar, and I want to make it perfectly clear that in the present supply position that is quite out of the question. Whilst it is true that there are shortages of certain lines, it is an interesting fact that, nevertheless, there has been no complaint from consumers, either in London or anywhere else.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that Coventry is short of sweets; and what action is proposed to deal with the situation.

Major Lloyd George: I have made special inquiries. Here as elsewhere there are local shortages of the more popular lines. This position should, however, right itself as manufacturers and wholesalers adjust their deliveries to the requirements of their customers.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that the Coventry branch of the National Union of Retail Confectioners has stated that all its 200 members are short of sweets; and that it is officially stated that, whereas the waiting period for supplies in Coventry used to be 14 days, it is now nine weeks?

Major Lloyd George: I have seen that statement— that the waiting period is seven to nine weeks— but the facts are as I stated in reply to a previous Question. The raw materials necessary for the increased consumption taking place were made available. As I said before, it will take some time for the new pattern of distribution to be worked out. For instance, today there are people selling sweets who have never sold them before: new points of distribution are growing up all over the country, and because the pattern of consumption is very much different today, particularly in certain localities, from what it was before the war, it will take some little time to settle down.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister not aware that the more wholesome varieties

of sweets, like butterscotch, and that sort of thing, have been wholly unobtainable in London since de-rationing? What is he going to do about it, seeing that the children are suffering thereby in having to buy unwholesome varieties?

Canning (Tinplate Supplies)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that demand will probably not exceed the estimated production of 975,000 tons of tinplate during 1953, he can now give an assurance that all tinplate requirements of the horticultural processing industry and fruit and vegetable canners in the United Kingdom will be fully met in 1953.

Major Lloyd George: I believe that their requirements will be met. It is, however, important that, as in recent years, canners should place orders and take advance deliveries of cans wherever possible in order to relieve the peak summer demand.

Wholemeal Flour

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the deficiencies of white and brown bread, he will encourage the use of wholemeal flour; and if he will make a statement.

Major Lloyd George: Wholemeal flour is available to bakers, and licences to make it are freely granted to millers upon application.

Soft Drinks

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been drawn to the serious position in which manufacturers of soft drinks find themselves due to the cut in import licences for sweetened syrups; and if he will issue additional sugar in lieu.

Major Lloyd George: I have received representations about the reduction in import licences for flavoured syrups, but I cannot find more sugar without using supplies urgently needed elsewhere.

Mr. Bowden: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the difficult position of manufacturers who commenced to manufacture since the war, who had no sugar allocation before the war and were not users of sugar, and who have relied almost exclusively upon their present supplies?

Major Lloyd George: I fully appreciate their position and sympathise with people such as those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. Owing to currency difficulties we had to have very drastic cuts in imported supplies. I have great sympathy for these people, and I will do everything I possibly can.

Argentine Meat

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food the present position regarding the importation of meat from the Argentine.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food to make a statement about present meat supplies from the Argentine.

Major Lloyd George: I understand that there is a shortage in the number of cattle coming forward for slaughter at present in Argentina. This has led the Argentine authorities to limit the amount of meat allocated for export. I am making further inquiries, but I am glad to say that the loadings of meat for export to this country during March were not affected, and that the Argentine National Meat Institute have assured our representatives that the loadings for April will not be affected either.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that it was reported in the papers that there was a shortage of meat in the Argentine, is that not further evidence that controls are the cause of shortages and that restricting consumption restricts production, and will my right hon. and gallant Friend allow experienced traders to get on with the job, and stop all Government trading?

Mr. Willey: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that his forecast a few months ago was very optimistic; and will he make it plain to the Argentine Government that we are not prepared to give an increase in price of £33 a ton unless we get the meat?

Major Lloyd George: The best thing I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I see no reason whatever to modify the forecast I made recently.

Sir W. Smithers: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Jay: As, according to all Press reports, shipments to this country are being

entirely suspended, is the Minister quite sure that his sources of information are not too optimistic?

Major Lloyd George: I think I have some fairly good sources of information, and my information leads me to believe that the forward promises we have had have been fulfilled during March, and will be during April and, I think, May. I have no reason to believe that this situation will not improve as soon as the cattle come forward for slaughter.

Eggs

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the variations in the seasonal prices of eggs resulting in increased prices to the housewife which have reduced the food subsidies by a further £15 million durina 1952–53.

Major Lloyd George: This saving was achieved by maintaining the winter price of eggs during the flush season in 1952–53.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think he has pulled rather "a fast one" in making such a considerable cut in the subsidy in such a concealed way? Does he not agree that it is nonsense to talk about a free market when, with the continuation of the controlled price and the putting up of the "floor" price, the housewife will not get the advantage claimed for the operation of supply and demand?

Major Lloyd George: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means, because this was done when eggs were still controlled. As for "pulling a fast one," this information was given in very great detail some time ago to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the success of his policy on eggs is amply demonstrated by the fact that, for the first time since pre-war, multiple grocers are today advertising shell eggs for sale?

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food, what was the controlled price of eggs per dozen on 25th March. 1951, and 25th March, 1953, respectively.

Major Lloyd George: From 2s. 6d. to 4s. 0d., and from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 0d.. according to weight and grade.

Prices

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food to what extent wholesale prices of food commodities have varied between mid-December, 1951, and mid-December, 1952; and by how much per month the items detailed in the cost-of-living index have fluctuated during this period with respect to wholesale prices.

Major Lloyd George: The wholesale prices of food commodities, as measured by the Board of Trade index, rose by 12 per cent. between December, 1951, and December, 1952. Nearly all the items in this index enter into the food section of the Interim Index of Retail Prices. The two indices differ in detail, but the figure I have just given, which represents an average rise of 1 per cent. per month, is the best available measure of the general movement of wholesale prices.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that the O.E.E.C. Report shows that there has been a fall in wholesale prices; and even on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's estimate that there has been an increase of 1 per cent, per month, does that justify a rise of 13 per cent. in retail prices?

Major Lloyd George: The wholesale index cannot really be compared with the retail index, because the retail index is based on the new foundation started by the late Administration. The wholesale index has not yet been brought up to date, and that is now being done. There are other causes which make a difference between the two.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that between mid-December, 1951, and mid-December, 1952, bread increased 24 per cent., flour 36 per cent., beef 26 per cent., mutton and lamb 19 per cent., bacon 51 per cent., milk 8 per cent., butter 20 per cent., margarine 14 per cent., cooking fat 13 per cent., cheese 86 per cent., sugar 17 per cent., biscuits 15 per cent., tea 16 per cent., vegetables 11 per cent., with further increases on cereals and tinned foods; and if he will state what factors, apart from withdrawal of subsidies, influenced these price increases.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. The main causes of these increases in price were increased costs of procurement, processing and distribution.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these figures have been taken from the cost-of-living index and that they represent the true position, but in his replies he has denied that the prices have soared to these figures?

Major Lloyd George: I have never denied it but have given the figures of the retail index, which are known to everyone and which it would be foolish to deny. The fact is that a large part of this increase in price was attributable to the policy of the late Administration in not keeping within the ceiling. The late Administration decided on the ceiling of £410 million. They were running well above that and did not take any steps to bring it down, but left it to us to do so. That is one of the main causes.

Mrs. Mann: I have excluded from this Question the food subsidy items and, therefore, there are a great many items covered by Question No. 38 to which the alleged £410 million ceiling does not apply at all.

Major Lloyd George: Most of the foodstuffs the hon. Lady mentions are, of course, affected by the food subsidies.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the retail index lists tea as 16 per cent. higher in price between mid-December, 1951, and mid-December, 1952; and what arrangements were made when controls were removed from tea to fix a ceiling price to each brand below which ceiling prices could be competitive.

Major Lloyd George: The increase arose from the removal of the subsidy last June, and had no connection with decontrol. To retain maximum prices for blends would have been quite inconsistent with decontrol.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that it is on record that on 12th March he gave the increased general average on tea as a difference between 3s. 3½d. and 3s. 4d. a lb., namely, about 4 per cent., whereas his own official index figure is 16 per cent.? Can he explain why?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Lady is getting mixed up between the removal of control and the removal of subsidies.


What I say is that there has been practically no increase since the removal of controls: the increase has been since the removal of subsidies.

Mr. Willey: When the Minister was talking about the subsidy ceiling, did he forget that he said on the wireless recently that he had reduced the ceiling to £220 million, and that that is the cause of this price increase?

Major Lloyd George: I did exactly the same thing, not on such a big scale, as hon. Members opposite did when the subsidies would otherwise have been £585 million.

Confectionery and Chocolate (Sugar Allocation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food what allocation of sugar will be made during the next three months to confectionery and chocolate manufacturers; and what increase this represents, in tonnage, over the allocation three months and a year ago.

Major Lloyd George: The allocations for the next three months are estimated at 41,000 tons. Leaving out of account the special allocation of 9,500 tons in February this year this is 850 tons more than for the previous quarter and 2,150 tons more than a year ago.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not this mean that the allocation has been taken from the sugar available for domestic consumption?

Major Lloyd George: As a matter of fact supplies to these industries were cut very heavily, and the whole of this sugar, 2,150 tons, is far too small to have any effect on the domestic consumer. I would repeat what I said in answer to a previous question, that any further allocation in the present supply position is quite out of the question.

Flour Improvers

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of fresh evidence that consumption of wheat-flour treated with nitrogen trichloride (agene), or chlorine dioxide produces eczema and mental disturbance in aller-gically responsive persons; and what

steps he is taking to make chemically untreated flour or bread available to such persons and to those who prefer it.

Major Lloyd George: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a recently published article in a medical journal reporting a single case of allergic response to flour treated with agene or chlorine dioxide. I am assured that flour which has not been treated with either of these improvers, and bread made from such flour, will, as hitherto, be available on special request.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Will the Minister not agree that bread made from wholemeal flour is much higher in nutritional value than bread made from white flour? If so, will he be good enough to inform the public widely of the beneficial effects of such flour?

Major Lloyd George: I think the public have a very good idea. The public also have a very keen desire to have white bread.

Dr. Stross: Although the Minister has been informed that up to now there has been one single case of allergy to nitrogen trichloride, has he also noted that it is expected that further cases will be found showing similar reactions? Does he not think that as we have been campaigning since 1926 to get rid of nitrogen trichloride as an improver, we might have something better at long last?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Member knows, this matter has been subject to careful examination for a considerable time. I am very much alive to it. I hope we may have an alternative which is neither of the present substances.

Mr. Stokes: Is not a return to white flour much more the desire of the millers than of the general public? Why does the Minister's Department consider that it is better for people to get the right vitamins through the digestive organs of animals than from whole-wheat meal?

Major Lloyd George: I should not like to go into all that. I am not sure that I altogether accept the remark of the right hon. Member about the miller, because, after all, it is in the long run the consumer who decides what he or she should eat.

DESERTERS (CORONATION AMNESTY)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (1) how many deserters have taken advantage of the recently announced amnesty and asked for pardon;
(2) how many Service deserters have been or are about to be released as a result of the proposed amnesty.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): Up to and including 25th March, nearly 1,900 applications have been received. Of these about 400 appear to be outside the scope of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd February. Forty-one men who were in custody, either awaiting trial or undergoing sentences for desertion, have been released.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the extension of the deserters amnesty to those who deserted prior to 3rd September, 1939, but served satisfactorily under an assumed name during the war; and whether he will make a further statement to clarify the position of deserters generally.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister, what action is being taken against deserters applying for the Coronation amnesty who are outside the dates of the amnesty.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement on this matter at the end of Questions.

THREE-POWER TALKS

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what approaches he has made since 2nd March to the Presidents of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the purposes of initiating three-Power talks; and what were the results attained.

The Prime Minister: We have not made proposals for a three-Power meeting. As the House knows, the Soviet Government have recently seemed to

desire an improvement in their relations with other countries. We welcome this but I think it would be well to see how far progress on those lines can be made before considering the desirability of more general talks.

Mr. Lewis: In thanking the Prime Minister for that very welcome and friendly statement, may I ask whether he will publicly give an assurance that, from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government and from his personal point of view, he will not lose any opportunity, when the right time does come, to make an approach for three-Power talks?

The Prime Minister: I think that if I couched my assurance in those general terms it would hardly advance matters much further, but I should like to say that I do not admit of any distinction between my personal point of view and that of Her Majesty's Government.

ROYAL CYPHER (NEW PILLAR BOXES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange that the Royal Cypher is not placed on new pillar boxes.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to place any general restriction on the use of the Royal Cypher. Its use for any particular purpose is a matter for detailed decision in relation to the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any truth in the statement that, in order to strengthen the case for the retention of the numeral, the Government have issued a circular offering £2,000 reward for information leading to the identification of Elizabeth I of Scotland, dead or alive? Is that now Government policy?

The Prime Minister: When I think of the greatness and splendour of Scotland, and her wonderful part in the history not only of this island but of the world, I think they really ought to keep their silliest people in order.

Lord John Hope: Is the Prime Minister aware that his last answer will give great satisfaction to everyone in Scotland except a very small lunatic fringe?

Mr. Rankin: Then may I ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to discover the authors of this poster?

The Prime Minister: It is not part of my duties as Prime Minister to seek out and work up into all these small ferret holes. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to give to Her Majesty's Government, or to the police, the Secretary of State for Scotland is entirely at his disposal.

PRESIDENT TITO'S VISIT (DISCUSSIONS)

The Prime Minister: In the absence of the Foreign Secretary, whose temporary indisposition will excite general regret, I will with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement on the recent visit to this country of President Tito, in reply to Question No. 17.
The Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Defence and I had a series of discussions with President Tito and his advisers which, to quote the President's words, "resulted in the greatest accord on how to preserve peace in Europe." I warmly endorse this statement. We saw eye to eye on all major aspects of policy in the international field. We were agreed upon the continuing necessity to maintain our vigilance, to concert our defence efforts more closely and to avoid any act savouring of provocation. We also agreed that there could be no question of thinking in terms of a localised war in Europe.
In view of the importance attached by Her Majesty's Government to filling the last gap in the defences of South and South-East Europe, we specially welcomed the Treaty concluded last month between Yugoslavia and her Greek and Turkish neighbours, and were glad to learn of President Tito's firm wish to improve relations with Italy. Amongst other matters discussed was our economic aid to Yugoslavia, and we also sought and obtained information about relations between all the Churches and the State which are now undergoing earnest review by the Yugoslav Government.
I do not think it is going too far to state that the whole visit was an unqualified success and has made a contribution of major importance to mutual collaboration and understanding, as well as to the general cause of peace.

Mr. Lewis: Again may I thank the Prime Minister for that statement and for the very welcome announcement it contains? He is aware that Yugoslavia suffered possibly more than any other nation in casualties in the last war— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they did. Unfortunately their economy has suffered from the effect of two droughts in addition to the blizzard from the Soviet Union; and therefore they must be in dire straits economically. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will make every effort to build up the improved trade relationship between the two countries so as to help Yugoslavia?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I need attempt to make a particular answer to that extremely general question. We certainly hope that prosperity will come back again to Yugoslavia, and will come all the quicker because of the general sense of security which is being established.

Mr. H. Morrison: We all welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister, as we all welcomed the visit of Marshal Tito, which we feel sure was a great success for the two Governments concerned. We were happy to have him here and we hope that good will result. It shows that given good will on both sides, successful business can be done even between Communist and non-Communist Governments.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It would be a terrible thing if mere ideological differences prevented people living ordinary lives in the world together. It is not the ideological differences but measures that may be taken of a concrete character which make the trouble.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Arising cut of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), would my right hon. Friend agree that the same principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman might well be applied to the relations between this country and Spain?

Mr. Speaker: This statement has nothing to do with Spain.

The Prime Minister: I think it a good thing to jump one fence at a time.

DESERTERS (CORONATION AMNESTY)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a further statement about deserters applying for the benefit of the Coronation amnesty.
In the statement on this subject which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in the House on 23rd February last he said that there would be no more prosecutions for desertion of members of the Armed Forces who had deserted from the Services between 3rd September, 1939, and 15th of August, 1945; that is to say, from the outbreak of war with Germany until the end of hostilities with Japan.
In spite of that statement, which received wide publicity at the time, over 400 men—many of them from the Republic of Ireland—who deserted at times outside those limiting dates, have mistakenly claimed the benefit of the amnesty in the belief that they were entitled to the concession. This belief may well have arisen from a genuine misunderstanding based on faulty or incomplete versions of my right hon. Friend's statement which they may have heard or read.
Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered how these mistaken claims should be dealt with, and have decided on the following steps.
Army and Air Force deserters who have, before today's date, lodged mistaken claims to benefit by the amnesty will be required to sign a confession of desertion in the prescribed form; an Order under Section 73 of the Army and Air Force Act will then be made dispensing with trial by court-martial. Corresponding treatment will be given to naval deserters in a similar position.
Among those who have confessed their desertion in the belief that they were covered by the amnesty are a limited number of men with a liability for service under the 1948 National Service Act. Such men will be required to complete their period of whole-time National Service. All other categories will be trans-

ferred to the appropriate unpaid Reserve, and will be given suitable certificates.
Written instructions in the sense of this decision will be sent to individual applicants by the Service authorities. Applicants will be warned that, unless they comply with the instructions, they remain liable to prosecution for desertion.
After today, men in civil life who claim the benefit of the amnesty, but who deserted before 3rd September, 1939, or after 15th August, 1945, will remain liable to arrest and prosecution for desertion.
As regards criminal offences consequential on desertion, such as irregularly obtaining or possessing a ration book or insurance card, I am in a position to say that the responsible authorities referred to in my statement on 17th March have informed the Government that, save in exceptional circumstances, it is not their intention to prosecute where a mistaken claim has been made up to the time of this statement. From today on, men who report themselves for desertion outside the war-time period will be liable to prosecution for the "consequential" offences also.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) has mentioned the possibility of a claim being made by men who deserted before 3rd September, 1939, but who subsequently served under an assumed name during the war. No claim of this kind has yet emerged; but it would clearly not be covered by the terms of the amnesty. If, however, a confession of guilt were to be received from any man in this position, I can give an assurance that it would be considered on its merits, and the fact that the man had given satisfactory service in the Armed Forces after his pre-war desertion would certainly be taken into consideration in deciding on his treatment.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: In view of the incredible complexity in which the Government now find themselves as a result of this continued series of statements made from time to time, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please consider the publication, in leaflet or pamphlet form, of a simple statement which would incorporate all the complicated announcements which have been made from time to time? If the Government are now to insist on this spurious sort of


amnesty, will they at least take the trouble to ensure that the people most concerned get to know what it is all about?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not accept the premise of the hon, and gallant Gentleman, and, with all good will, I say that it is very dangerous to apply one's personal standards to the general intelligence of the country. I want to point out that the effect of what I have said is that the benefit of the doubt has been given to everyone who has made application on the assumption that they have made an honest and bona fide mistake. On that basis, they are allowed—those who have applied up to date—to share the favourable position previously announced. I will, however, certainly consider what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the issuing of a statement, because it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to help those concerned in every way we can.

Mr. Shinwell: While we welcome the modification of the original scheme upon which the Government have now decided, is there not something anomalous in the position that men who deserted during hostilities are to be treated more favourably than men who deserted after 1945? Surely that is an anomalous position. [Interruption.] I should have thought, since the Prime Minister has interjected, that it was a much more serious offence to have deserted during hostilities than to have deserted in peace-time. While I am not asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government to agree that all deserters should come within the amnesty, because, obviously, that would be going much too far, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to take certain dates between 1945 and the beginning of the 1947 National Service Act, and reconsider the position?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we did consider this very carefully. We considered practically every permutation and combination that could be thought out. After doing so, we felt that it was important to give the opportunity of wiping the slate clean to those who had served during the war-time period; and that has been announced to the House. After I

had added the details, as I did on 17th March, the House felt that it was a reasonable way of dealing with the problem. What we have done today is to say that we will give the benefit of the doubt to those who have applied by mistake. Again, I believe that, on reflection, the House will think that it is only reasonable to reflect the generosity which we all want to go out from this House.

Mr. R. Bell: Does not the giving of the benefit of the doubt to mistaken applications, while welcome in itself, place the man who has understood the announcement correctly at a disadvantage as compared with the man who has made a mistake, inasmuch as the former now gets a free pardon, whereas the latter remains liable to detection and punishment? Would not my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether the fixing of a certain date does not inevitably lead to cases of injustice and hardship, and could he not consider the possibility of a partial remission of punishment for those who deserted after 15th August and within a limited time after that?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: After 18 years in this House, I have never known any provision announced in the House which could not be attacked by taking up a hard case just on the borderline. I would, however, point out to my hon. Friend that there is another and overriding principle which, I think, justifies the action I have announced to the House. It is that the House should not be party to anyone being punished through a mistake. Therefore, I am prepared to see some people who did not make a mistake get away with it rather than that anyone should be punished because he had make a mistake.

Mr. Logan: While I agree that the concessions which have been made are generous, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman about a case which I put to the War Office three weeks ago. I did not want to raise it on the Floor of the House, thinking that it would be better to do it through the Department. It is the case of a soldier who, having served his full time in Italy, got married, and, because he did not come to Liverpool for disembarkation, was sentenced to 83 days' imprisonment by court-martial. I suppose that is a


case on the lines of the concession which has been made for desertion, because it was a case of desertion. The soldier's wife, an Italian lady and a very nice person, is anxious for the concession to apply to her husband and I think that, as a matter of equity, the War Office ought to be able to concede it.
The details of this case are now in the War Office and I want to know whether it is possible to grant this concession to a man who has served the whole of his time and who only stayed away to get married, which I suppose anyone else might do. Will the War Office look into this particular case again, because this man's 83 days' imprisonment expires on 24th April? May I have an answer?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the War Office are looking into this case, and that he will hear from them.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. Some of us on this side of the House are not very happy about the reference of the Home Secretary to the mental equipment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut-Colonel Lipton) and feel that an opportunity ought to be given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw what I regard as a very obnoxious reference. There are many of us on this side who consider that the mental equipment of my hon. and gallant Friend is in no way inferior to the mental equipment of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for me. I heard nothing said that was out of order.

Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what proportion of the men covered by the amnesty as now drafted are believed to be living outside the United Kingdom, and whether steps will be taken through diplomatic channels to bring the terms of the amnesty to their notice?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can only proceed on the information that we have to date, but I should think that just under a half are probably resident in the Republic of Ireland. I ask the House to accept that figure with reserve, however, because it is based on the preliminary figures given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence.

KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Donnelly: Mr. Donnelly (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the Korean truce talks and Mr. Chou En-lai's reported speech.

The Prime Minister: I take this opportunity to inform the House of the latest developments in regard to Korea.
Early in February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested to the United States Government the possibility of an appeal to the other side to agree to the immediate repatriation of seriously sick and wounded prisoners. He also put this idea to Commonwealth Governments. The House will recall that on 23rd February my right hon. Friend announced the dispatch, on the previous day, of a letter from the United Nations Commander-in-Chief to the opposing commanders proposing the immediate repatriation of seriously sick and wounded.
On 28th March the Chinese and North Korean commanders agreed to General Mark Clark's proposal. They stated that in their view a settlement of this question, to quote their words—important words—
should be made to lead to the smooth settlement of the entire question of prisoners of war, thereby achieving an armistice in Korea.
Three days later, General Clark proposed that liaison groups should meet at Panmunjom as soon as possible to make detailed arrangements for the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners. He, too, expressed the hope that this exchange would make more likely the smooth settlement of the entire prisoners-of-war question and declared himself ready to instruct his liaison group, as a second order of business, to arrange for the resumption of the armistice negotiations by the main delegations.
The House will recall that when the armistice negotiations were suspended on 8th October, General Harrison, the United Nations Command delegate, announced that the United Nations would be ready to resume discussions at any time when the other side were prepared to accept one of the outstanding United Nations proposals or to put forward a constructive counter proposal of their own. This situation now appears to have


arisen. On 30th March, Mr. Chou En-lai, the Chinese Prime Minister, suggested in a broadcast—I quote his words:
that both parties to the negotiations should undertake to repatriate immediately after the cessation of hostilities all those prisoners of war in their custody who insist upon repatriation and to hand over the remaining prisoners of war to a neutral State so as to ensure a just solution to the question of their repatriation.
This statement, so far as we can judge, does not run counter to the principles on which we have taken our stand on the prisoners-of-war question. Thus it seems to provide a basis on which the armistice negotiations can be usefully resumed.
As these issues affect us all and rise, I trust, far above party difference, I venture to think that the wisdom and foresight with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has sought to influence these events will commend itself to the House. On 11th November, he addressed the General Assembly and stated the principles on which our stand was based. In brief, these were that force should not be used to prevent or affect the return of prisoners. It has always been his view, fortified by the House on both sides, that the issue should and could be settled on these lines, which were afterwards embodied in the Indian plan and found acceptable by a large majority of the United Nations. The formula now suggested by the Chinese Prime Minister appears not inconsistent with these principles.
These developments, if not spoiled, certainly constitute a considerable event. They seem to offer a new hope for a solution of the prisoner-of-war difficulty and for a cessation of the fighting in Korea for which we—this Government and the late one—and our allies have striven so earnestly and so long. Many difficulties still remain to be resolved. We shall continue to try to overcome them with the same patience and caution and with the same insistence on basic principles by which we have throughout been guided.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that subject to proper and honourable safeguards there is a heartfelt longing throughout the whole of the British nation to see a termination of the

Korean war? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions, briefly? First, can he say whether he has any further information, through any channels he may have been able to use, as to which might be the neutral State referred to in Chou En-lai's broadcast? Secondly, can he say what positive steps Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other Governments concerned in this matter, are taking to take advantage of this appearance of an offer so that we may get more information as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be a mistake for us to try to define with particularisation the neutral State which might be found agreeable to all parties.

Mr. H. Morrison: The House will, I am sure, have heard with pleasure the statement made by the Prime Minister, and as one who, following Mr. Malik's statement in New York, initiated the armistice talks in association with our American colleagues, I am certainly very pleased that those discussions are now to be resumed. We would like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that we are most anxious that these talks shall be successful. We hope they come to a successful end and will conclude by the firm establishment of peace, not only in Korea, but throughout the Far East. On behalf of the Opposition, and, indeed, of everybody, I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and our friends involved in these discussions, every success in this important matter.

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his valuable and important remarks.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the Prime Minister been made aware of the rather touching gesture made by a great many poor Chinese peasants, themselves accustomed to the tragedies and the miseries of floods, in collecting some £15,000 which they presented yesterday to the Lord Mayor of London as their contribution to our Flood Relief Fund? I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can say whether he will acknowledge this rather generous gift in the same way as he acknowledged a similar gift from the Soviet Union.

The Prime Minister: I have not heard about this before. I will look into it, and I certainly would express the same sentiments if an opportunity presented itself. I had the opportunity of speaking to Mr. Gromyko on the Russian gift. We have a representative in Peking, but no corresponding official has been provided here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to state the business of the House for the week of our resumption?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir, the business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 14TH APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH APRIL AND THURSDAY, 16TH APRIL—General debate on the Budget Resolutions and the economic situation, which will be continued and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 20th April.
FRIDAY, 17TH APRIL—Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Morrison: We shall all be interested in what the Chancellor has to say when he opens his Budget. May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there were discussions through the usual channels yesterday about some Prayers affecting trade in relation to China? We agreed to postpone them from yesterday to today and, we assumed that, as far as priority of business is concerned, that was acceptable. We are surprised, therefore, to see a whole mass of business on the Order Paper between the Government Orders of the Day and the Prayers themselves with the result that, in any case, it is doubtful whether the Prayers could be reached earlier than some time after 10 o'clock, or at any rate before 10 o'clock.
We feel that this was not quite the right thing to do and that the Prayers ought to have been put down next to Government business. We should like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of

the House to look into it. I may add, however, for the convenience of the House, that we have decided, not only for that reason, but because of the general situation vis-à-vis China and the Korean discussions, that we do not propose to move the Prayers tonight but that we will take them after the Easter Recess when the time will be more propitious.

Mr. Crookshank: I understand that the Opposition are not proposing to move the Prayers today, so I do not think that it is a matter of very great consequence in what order the Prayers are printed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] As I understand the situation, they were handed in by the right hon. Gentleman himself last night.

Mr. Morrison: They were on the Order Paper yesterday and they were postponed until today. May I make an earnest personal appeal to the Leader of the House to exercise some degree of tact? I really was entitled to comment on the fact that all this other business had been placed on the Order Paper in front of these Prayers, which have been postponed from yesterday to today by agreement. If, at the end, I indicated that in the broad public interest, and in the interest of international amity in that part of the world, we ourselves had decided that we would postpone these Prayers until after Easter, was it not a thing which the right hon. Gentleman might have appreciated, instead of merely saying that their order was not a matter of very great consequence?

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman took me up so sharply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for not pursuing the matter today. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not have said so?"] I was answering the other point first and I am sorry if I was precipitate. I appreciate the gesture which the right hon. Gentleman made. All that I was indicating was that as that had happened it did not seem that the order in which the Prayers were printed made any difference. But if there has been any error on our part about these Prayers, I will certainly look into it.
Quite frankly, I did not understand last night that there was an intention to take


them today, because the last words that I used before we adjourned was that business today would be as I announced it last week, and I did not announce anything about Prayers last week. I did not refer to the Prayers last night, because they had not been referred to in the business the week before and, therefore, I was not aware last night that there was any question of their being taken today.
Since then, however, we have understood, first of all, that it was the wish of the Opposition to take the Prayers and afterwards that they now generously withdraw from that position. That I gladly acknowledge and thank them for doing. If there is any error in the order in which the Prayers are printed on the Order Paper I will look into it, but in the circumstances I do not think that it makes all that difference.

Mr. Ede: It is important that we should get this matter cleared up. It is not the custom of any Leader of the House to announce when Opposition Prayers will be taken, but last night there was a general discussion in an endeavour to get out of some difficulties which we were in owing to yesterday's business. I, as the one whose name appears at the head of the Prayers, certainly understood that if we did not move them last night they would be moved tonight. The considerations announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) have arisen since then.
All that I ask the Leader of the House to do is to make quite certain that when the Opposition desire to have a Prayer on a particular night the arrangements should be made or, if it is inconvenient to the Government to take them—and I do not think that that really arises on this occasion—there should be conversations. Those conversations should take place so that we should arrive at general arrangements in order that there should not be the inconvenience which the taking of Prayers at times inconvenient to one side of the House sometimes causes.

Mr. Crookshank: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That has been our endeavour and will continue to be. I am only saying that last night it was not my understanding that that was what happened. I am sorry if I caused agitation in the minds of hon. Members

opposite. I can assure them that if as a result of conversations about these Prayers a particular day is agreed upon we shall certainly see that they are put on the Order Paper in the right place.

SCOTLAND (WIND-BLOWN TIMBER)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the wind-blown timber in Scotland.
It is estimated that the total quantity blown is from 35 million to 40 million cubic feet, which is rather higher than the figure I previously quoted. A substantial start has been made in clearing up the mess. There are already some 300 additional men at work—most of whom were previously unemployed—and it should be possible to obtain the additional labour required, estimated at about 1,000 men, without widespread transfer from other parts of the country.
Arrangements for working about two-thirds of the timber have already been made between the owners and timber merchants, though in most cases the question of prices has been reserved until negotiations for marketing the converted produce have been completed. I am glad to say that progress has now been made with marketing arrangements.
A satisfactory agreement has been reached with the Railway Executive for the purchase of softwood sleepers and wagon timber, which it is estimated will absorb about half the sawn softwood resulting from the wind-blow. An agreement with the National Coal Board is expected to be concluded, at an early date. The prices show reductions which reflect the trend of timber prices generally, and are not the result of the wind-blow.
To assist in the disposal of the remaining softwood timber, the Minister of Materials is arranging for the Departments who issue licences for the consumption of softwood to endorse the licences, where practicable, as available for homegrown timber only. Endorsed licences of this kind will be issued to consumers not only in Scotland, but in the northern counties of England, where it is hoped that Scottish timber will be available in


reasonable quantities. Instructions are now being sent to the Departments concerned, and the issue of these special licences should begin soon afterwards.
The Minister of Materials is also arranging that departments who receive softwood allocations will be able to issue licences for home-grown softwood against their allocations for the second half-year, some weeks earlier than would normally be the practice. [Interruption.]

Mr. Boothby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This statement is of vital importance to some of us. May I appeal to hon. Members to stop their conversation for a moment because this statement does interest some of us a good deal, although I quite agree that it is not of great interest to the bulk of hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Stuart: I was doing my best to speak up. I was half shouting. I can assure hon. Members that this statement is very important to some people.
It is earnestly hoped that licensed softwood consumers in Scotland and Northern England will co-operate by making the utmost use of this homegrown timber against any licences already issued to them, and by readily accepting licences valid only for home-grown softwood for some purposes for which they would ordinarily have used imported timber.
The sawmilling capacity in the affected area, even after allowance is made for the transfer of mills to the area, would be inadequate to deal with the timber in time to prevent serious deterioration or the building up of a population of bark beetles which would be a threat to the remaining crops of growing timber. It is, therefore, necessary to transport timber in the log for conversion at mills elsewhere in Scotland, and this movement involves heavy additional costs.
The Government have, therefore, decided to assist in meeting the additional costs which arise in these quite exceptional circumstances, and are prepared, until 31st December, 1954, to pay two-thirds of the rail freight involved in transporting wind-blown round logs to mills outside the area, up to a maximum rail freight of 50s. per ton. Details of the operation of this scheme will shortly be announced by the Forestry Commission.
Special problems have arisen in connection with the pitwood. Some of it will have to be transported outside the area for conversion, and certain categories of production will be in excess of requirements in the Scottish coalfield, which is the normal market for pitwood from this area. This material will, therefore, have to be absorbed in the English and possibly the Welsh coalfields. In these very special circumstances, the Government will assist in meeting the additional costs involved. The effect will be that sellers will get as nearly as possible the same return as if the pitwood had been dispatched in the ordinary way to the Scottish coalfields.
In taking these steps, the Government feel that they have cleared the way for the conclusion of satisfactory price agreements between owners and merchants for the blown timber. I have noted with satisfaction that the organisations representing owners and merchants have been co-operating closely, and I understand that they will jointly issue advice to their members on the question of prices. Owners, if in doubt, would be well advised to seek advice from their organisations.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that all hon. Members, wherever they come from, will be glad to know that this timber is not to be lost but is to be used. That, I think, is the most important matter economically. I am sure that the House will also be surprised to learn, as I understand is the case, that the damage in Scotland is well above the Goschen formula compared with the damage in the South. I am sure that we were all of opinion that the damage in the North was less than in the South, but it has turned out to be otherwise. I am sure also that we are very glad that the Secretary of State has been able to arrange for the employment of so many unemployed people in the North to deal with this timber.
With regard to the endorsement of licences for the use of home-grown timber, the Secretary of State did not say that there is to be any increase in the licences issued to those Departments which can use home-grown timber. It appears to me that great use could be made of this timber in housing, and that it would be an economy as well as a


means of using the timber, because it would save the costs of cement and other things.
Therefore, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the issue of these licences includes an increased permission to local authorities and other people so that they may use the timber in the construction of houses, such as in floors and so forth. I think the House will agree that it has been a wise decision to provide for a rationalisation of the rail services in order to ensure that timber shall be used. In conclusion, I should like to ask the Secretary of State to reply to my question about the use of timber in houses.

Mr. Stuart: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance about the use of timber in houses. The point is that it is quite easy to absorb this timber in the normal marketing process. It does not represent such a large percentage of our total requirements, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it can easily be absorbed in the normal marketing process.

Mr. Boothby: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement, which will be greatly appreciated, may I ask him quite briefly whether he is in a position to give any estimate of the quantity of timber that will be taken by the National Coal Board and the Transport Commission respectively, and the approximate price. He may not be in a position to do so, but if he can it will be appreciated.

Mr. Stuart: I can answer my hon. Friend on his point about the Railway Executive. It amounts to this: sleepers and crossings, 8,000 standards or 1,320,000 cubic feet; wagon bottoms and sheeting, 20,000 standards or 3,300,000 cubic feet. The Coal Board negotiations are not complete.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the arrangements that he has made for the restriction of imports of foreign timber will completely protect this wind-blown timber so far as its disposal is concerned, or whether the wind-blown timber will still have to compete to any extent with imported timber?

Mr. Stuart: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman may be assured that we

shall still have to import because the wind-blown is a very small percentage of the timber that we have to use. The imports will not affect our ability to use the wind-blown.

Mr. Spence: May I ask the Secretary of State two questions? First, will he publish as soon as possible details of the machinery under which the payment of freight charges can be recovered? Second, can he give any assurance on what is to happen to money that is received from the sale of blown timber? Can this be held in a blocked account against reafforestation? Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to that matter?

Mr. Stuart: In reply to the first point, I did say in my statement that the arrangements for working out the transport and freight charges will be published shortly. On the second point, the first essential is the clearing of the damaged areas. Replanting cannot commence until more than four years have passed, so I would rather concentrate on this emergency for the moment.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE COST (COMMITTEE)

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the cost of the National Health Service.
With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have had under close review—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting, but it is now 50 minutes since the end of Questions. It has usually been thought not quite appropriate to have too many Ministerial statements on the same day interfering with normal business. Is there anything so very urgent in the statement now being made that it could not have waited until tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: It is my experience—and it may be that of the hon. Member—that when a vacation is approaching there is always a sudden rush of statements to be made in the House, but the sooner we can complete them the better.

Mr. Macleod: With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have had under close review the whole problem of the present and future cost of maintaining a proper and adequate National Health Service. We have, as the House is aware, already initiated a number of administrative and other measures designed to alleviate, as far as possible, the considerable cost to the taxpayer without impairing the quality of the service provided. But these are, inevitably, measures of detail and the general long-term problem remains essentially unsolved.
After a great deal of thought, the Secretary of State and I both feel that the many issues involved in this problem are so complex that the wisest course will be to refer the whole matter for an independent and objective inquiry by a committee. We therefore propose to appoint a small committee with the following terms of reference:
To review (he present and prospective cost of the National Health Service; to suggest means, whether by modifications in organisation or otherwise, of ensuring the most effective control and efficient use of such Exchequer funds as may be made available; to advise how, in view of the burdens on the Exchequer, a rising charge upon it can be avoided, while providing for the maintenance of an adequate Service; and to make recommendations.
I am glad to say that Mr. C. W. Guillebaud, the Cambridge economist, has accepted our invitation to be chairman of the new committee. I will inform the House as soon as possible of the names of the other members.

Mr. Bevan: May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, protest at this practice of making very important statements immediately before a Parliamentary Recess? Furthermore, may I respectfully submit that this, in particular, is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure, because immediately after the Recess we are to have a Budget statement which necessarily bears upon the cost of the National Health Service, and the appropriate time to make a statement of this sort—if, indeed, it should be made at all—would be in the course of the Budget statement. In spite of that, it is being made today, when we are rising tomorrow; and I suggest to you, as I did at the beginning, that this is a serious abuse of the procedure of the House. It is similar to what occurred

before the Christmas Recess, and we ought not to have any more of it.
Next, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Cabinet, as a whole, seriously decided that this was an issue that should be remitted to a committee of inquiry. Is it not in fact a matter primarily for the House of Commons, for political decision, and is it not an act of the most unprecedented political cowardice to send to a committee a matter which is at the centre of British politics?
I am sorry to have to trespass upon the time of the House in this way, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give his attention to the fact that not only modifications to the organisation are to be discussed but, in the words of the terms of reference, "or otherwise." In other words, the whole central question whether there should be any longer a free health service in Great Britain is to be remitted to a committee of inquiry.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to have advice upon the question whether any modifications in the organisation of the Health Service ought to be made, why does he not ask for the views of the Central Health Service Council, which is exactly suited to that purpose, and which is a repository of expert knowledge on this subject? Is it not a fact that what he is doing, as a consequence of struggles between himself and the Treasury, is seeking another instrument by which he might mutilate the National Health Service? Everybody knows that he is the avowed enemy of the Service, as he has publicly declared, and in his own hands it has already received many grievous blows. The best service he could render it would be to resign.

Mr. Macleod: First, on the question of the timing of this statement, which was the first of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, I saw Mr. Guillebaud yesterday afternoon and thought it my duty to inform the House as soon as possible.
On the second point, of course it is true that this matter has been considered at the highest levels of Government, but we consider—and it is possible to disagree on this—that it is essentially a Departmental matter and, therefore, that this announcement should be made by myself


and not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the Budget speech. This is a long-term problem which, in the view of most people- as I said in my statement—remains essentially unsolved.
When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should remit this question to the Central Health Service Council—or that we should take account of their views on this kind of matter— I entirely disagree. It is because the Central Health Service Council are representative of wide interests within the Health Service that I do not consider them to be the proper body for an inquiry of this nature. In my view, what is needed is an entirely independent inquiry. It should not in any sense be a political one, nor one which is linked in any way, through the membership of the committee, to any of the professions concerned in the Health Service.
With regard to the accusations that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to end his speech with, in the first place I should not have agreed to a committee—nor would Mr. Guillebaud have accepted the chairmanship of a committee—which was designed to mutilate the National Health Service. I know perfectly well that on a matter that so deeply concerns the finances of the Health Service the House will give the very fullest value to the views of a Minister of Health who never got his Estimates within £100 million of the right figure.

Mr. Bevan: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the first error that he made in the course of his statement? I never suggested that these terms of reference should be sent to the Central Health Service Council. I suggested that they might be asked for their advice about any organisational modifications.
With regard to the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman, he might again seek the advice of his officials, because he will find that my last Estimate was £14 million underspent.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an expenditure equal to £400 million in the National Budget, and which concerns the welfare of all the citizens of Great Britain, is a fit subject to be remitted to a committee of inquiry. If so, why does not the Chancellor of

the Exchequer remit to a committee of inquiry the question whether taxes should be lower or higher. That is the question which the Minister has re-mitted to the committee. Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer hand his Budget to a committee of inquiry? Is not it a fact that what the right hon. Gentleman is really doing is to seek the most respectable way—

Mr. Alport: On a point of order. We have already had a number of statements. Hon. Members opposite drew attention to the way in which they had eaten into the time allowed for the business of the House. May I have your guidance as to whether, subsequent to a statement, the matter should develop into a debate and a vicious personal attack upon the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: It is customary after a statement to ask questions in elucidation. I think that some of the statements made on both sides of the House have been more in the nature of debate. I understood the Minister's statement to mean that he is appointing a committee. Presumably the report of that committee will come before us at some time and we can debate it. Certainly, the legislative provisions of the National Health Service Act cannot be altered without the approval of this House. Perhaps we could draw our preliminary investigation to a close.

Mr. S. Silvernsan: While it is true that I drew your attention to the number of statements that had already been made and invited you to say whether or not this additional one should be made, may I now submit, Mr. Speaker, that the character of the statement that has been made amply justifies my raising the original point and amply demonstrates that the making of such a statement at such a time is an abuse of the procedure of the House? What the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has done has been to take one large chunk of public expenditure and propose an entirely revolutionary and unconstitutional method of dealing with it. If he had made the same proposal with regard to the Defence Services nobody in this House would have had any doubt about its impropriety.

Mr. Speaker: I must appeal to the House on this matter. I do not think that there is any point of order in what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has put to me. I did not gather from the statement of the Minister that it was proposed that the authority of this House should be superseded by that of the committee.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. Immediately after the Recess we are to consider the Budget. An essential feature of the Budget is the expenditure on the National Health Service. When any reference is made in the course of the Budget or the Budget debate to such an expenditure, mention will be made of the setting up of this committee. Therefore, the House will be expected to be abortive in its decision on the National Health Service. I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was right. If this had been the Defence Services, its impropriety would have been obvious. In my submission the right hon. Gentleman, immediately before the Easter Recess and the Budget, has made a statement the purpose of which is to nullify a great deal of the discussion on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker: I do not agree with that. I do not think that any point of order arises.

Mr. Fort: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many inside this House and many outside will welcome the statement and the opportunity to have a large amount of information about costs and expenditure brought together in a form in which we can really appreciate its value? In putting this matter before the committee, will he ask their opinion about the effect of making block grants to the hospitals, which would give regional boards greater independence than they have enjoyed under the organisation originated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)?

Mr. Macleod: On the general question, of course it is true that a vast number of people in all political parties have thought for a long time that this matter should be inquired into. On the specific question about block grants, of course they come within the terms of reference. That is a subject on which people hold

strong views and on which there may conceivably be considerable saving. I have no doubt that the points of view for and against block grants will be put to the Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Minister—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. May I inquire whether or not it is customary for the Ballot for Notices of Motions to be taken after Questions. We have now spent 67 minutes since the end of Questions, with the result that grave inconvenience is being caused to private Members who have remained in their places to take part in the ballot.

Mr. Speaker: I am fully aware of that. We have had an hour of Questions followed by Private Notice Questions and statements. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will be as brief as possible.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a reading of the terms of reference creates the impression that they are tendentious and that they are suggesting to the committee what the committee should report? Since an economist is being put in charge of the committee, is it its purpose to find out, as the Organisation and Methods Department of the Treasury might find out, whether the existing service can be more economically worked? Is the Minister aware that there is a Select Committee of this House which inquires into these matters and which may have been examining this question already? Has he considered that this may be a reflection upon them?
If this committee is to give a balanced report to the House, will it be called upon to find out what was the cost of preventable disease in this country before the Health Service was introduced? If my memory is correct, before the war the right hon. Gentleman's Department estimated it at £350 million a year. May I ask him whether he will broaden the terms of reference so that if the committee is to report on the economics of the Health Service it will report on them comprehensively as they affect the whole country?

Mr. Macleod: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his reading of


the terms of reference. This is a general inquiry into the function, structure and policy of the service and not an economy cuts committee. It is true that the Select Committee have done admirable work in this field, but that touches only the fringe of the very much bigger problem. Many countries have made experiments in social welfare, and we ourselves have had this spendid experiment going on now for five years. But not everybody is satisfied that we and other countries have found the ideal way of running the service and the ideal way of financing it. We can honestly differ about this, but in my view a committee not tied to any profession in the Health Service or to any political party is the best way in which we can seek answers to these difficult questions. This is a very long-term business. It will take many months and perhaps a year.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. The Minister has said that the inquiry will last a long time. May I ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, knew, when you were asked to allow the statement to be made this afternoon, that only the chairman of the committee had been selected and not the other people? It seems clear now that the committee will not start work for some time yet.

Mr. Speaker: That appears to be so. I heard the Minister say that it would take a long time. It has already taken a long time.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will now proceed with the Ballot for Notices of Motions.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

PARTIALLY DISABLED (COMPENSATION)

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) is, unfortunately, unavoidably out of the

Chamber, but he has asked me, on his behalf, to beg to give notice that, on Friday, 17th April, he will call attention to the inadequate rates of compensation payable to the partially disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and move a Resolution.

INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 17th April, I shall call attention to the capital starvation of industry, and move a Resolution.

FOODSTUFFS (ALCOHOL MANUFACTURE)

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 17th April, I shall call attention to the diversion of foodstuffs for the manufacture of alcohol, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Leasehold Property Act and Long Leases (Scotland) Act Extension Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'Clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'Clock; and at Five o'Clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 14th April.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — COASTAL FLOODING (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill which I am commending to the House today is, as its name implies, an emergency and largely temporary Measure designed to effect quickly permanent repairs to our sea defences, and is necessitated by the disastrous tidal surge that swept over our sea walls on the East Coast just two months ago.
As the Prime Minister said at the outset, this catastrophe requires to be treated upon a national basis and, broadly, as a national responsibility, and I would ask the House to accept the Bill in that spirit. It is in this way that we are tackling this disaster and treating it as an abnormal occurrence which justifies urgent and exceptional treatment. The Bill is in two parts. Part I deals with restoration of sea defences and Part II with the rehabilitation of agricultural land which has been flooded all along the East Coast.
First, let me deal with Part I in general terms. The House will not expect me to describe again the events on the night of 31st January and the early morning of 1st February, and the steps that have been taken since then to deal with the effects of the flood disaster. These matters have been described and discussed very fully in the course of debates in this House. I would only remind the House of the statement I made on 2nd February, that the events of the previous day confronted us with the need for the reinstatement of sea defences along a great length of our coastline, and that this would present the nation with one of the greatest civil engineering problems that we had ever had to face.
The operation of closing the breaches has been tackled with great energy, as has, I think, been agreed on all sides. The task of strengthening the temporary work has gone ahead in the same way, but along the 1,000 miles of coastline for which the East Coast river boards are

responsible the sea defences have been generally weakened although not breached—that is in addition to where they have been breached—and are in no fit state to stand up to the storms and tidal conditions that the winter months almost invariably bring to our coasts. We must do everything in our power to guard against a recurrence of further widespread flooding next winter. Our sea defences must be restored by permanent works at least to their pre-flood strength and, as the House knows, the full cost of such work carried out by river boards for this purpose before the end of September will be met by the Government.
The House will remember that it will be one of the main tasks of the committee over which Lord Waverley is presiding to advise about the long-term measure of protection that will be necessary. Without waiting for their report, more extensive work will have to be done before next winter for the protection of certain populated areas such as Canvey Island and some important industrial establishments, such as the oil plants on the Thames Estuary. Some part of the cost of these additional protective works can properly be met from local resources. Such a local contribution may either be met by a larger precept upon the internal drainage board, towards the funds of which the big plant will be a major contributor as one of the largest ratepayers, or, alternatively, in appropriate cases, the owners of the plant will be asked to pay direct part of the cost.
Local negotiations regarding the financing of these additional works will not be allowed to delay their execution. The responsibility for doing these works to protect low-lying coastal areas against flooding by sea water rests with river boards, which are responsible to my Department.
From the earliest times, civilised man has been concerned with the embanking of land to protect it from flooding and the drainage of land so protected. The two functions go together and dovetail one into the other. Over the centuries special authorities were set up to cover land drainage and the prevention of inundation from the sea. The father of all these authorities was established as far back as 700 years ago in Romney Marsh, and


more than four centuries ago the Statute of Sewers of 1531 provided for the establishment of authorities to maintain sea and estuarial embankments and to levy rates to meet the cost of work done.
This early Measure was supplemented by further general and local legislation; but, as recently as 25 years ago, responsibility for these sea defence works rested with a large number of small, local drainage authorities.
Concentration of responsibility into larger units began in 1930 and was completed by the River Boards Act of 1948. As a result, the river boards, roughly, one for each of the coastal counties, came into existence between 1950 and 1952. It may interest the House to know that the Essex River Board, which has suffered severely in the past two months, was set up as recently as October, 1952. The general public did not perhaps realise at the time, and may not fully realise even now, the importance of the sea defence functions exercised by these few authorities along great lengths of coastline. It was, however, a matter of crucial importance that, when the crisis happened, we had on the spot authorities with specialist engineering staff, workmen and equipment and with full knowledge of the embankments concerned, who were able immediately to take local control of the emergency work and who are now in control of the reconstruction work.
As I have said, river boards are the inheritors of a long history of powers and traditions. In this long history they are very new authorities. But all sides of the House will agree that, in the greatest crisis they could have been called upon to face, they have won their spurs during this winter.
As I have told the House, the overriding need at the moment is to restore our sea defences swiftly and to do as much work as possible before next autumn. Within this period, and in any case as soon as possible, we must plan, negotiate and carry out sea defence works that would in normal times occupy anything between perhaps 10 and 15 years. The planning is a matter for the engineers of river boards and of my Department. The execution of the work will be largely a matter for civil engineering contractors, most of whom are already on the sites engaged on emergency works.
Subject to appropriate compensation for loss or for damage done, the needs of the community for protection against further flooding must take precedence over the rights of the individual. Normal processes of negotiation, the service of notices, the holding of inquiries, and so on, can have only a limited part in this urgent task. The Bill provides the powers to enable river boards to take the necessary short cuts, such as entry on land without notice for construction of banks, and to reconcile the river boards' proposals with the interests of individuals and other authorities.
In a sentence, the Bill seeks to give for a limited period—and I would stress the words "limited period"—and only to the six river boards principally concerned, either powers that they do not at present possess or stronger or more speedy powers than those which they now exercise. The Bill is limited to the six authorities specified in Clause 1, because it was in their areas that the major damage occurred and on them rests the major task of reconstruction. Damage was also done in other areas, such as Northumberland and Durham, but we believe that work in these areas can be dealt with under existing powers. Indeed, much of the work done by the six specified river boards will, we expect, be done by agreement. The Bill provides particularly for the cases where agreement cannot be secured readily or where the ordinary processes would be too slow. I think the House will agree that we cannot take the risk that necessary work will be held up because the requisite powers are not available.
I do not propose this afternoon to explain in detail each Clause. Part I of the Bill enables me to authorise any one of the six river boards to construct or repair embankments on any land to protect their areas from flooding by sea water. Engineering considerations will determine where the bank must go. In some cases, if a new bank is being con-tructed it may be necessary to use the site of a building or the area surrounding a building, such as the garden of a private house, and Clause 1 (3, a) enables this to be done for bank construction only, including, of course, the construction of a road immediately behind the bank or of a ditch or borrow pit from which clay may be extracted to build it


While much of the material for building banks will be obtained from behind the bank, in some cases it will be necessary to obtain clay or other material from a distance, and to ensure that there is no delay the Bill enables me to authorise river boards to enter on land and obtain such materials. This class of work is referred to in the Bill as "earth getting": and although this is a somewhat unusual phrase to find in an Act of Parliament, it is perhaps sufficiently descriptive of the process we have in mind.
Similarly, river boards will need access to the embankments for works purposes; and I may authorise them to construct access roads across private land. Finally, in connection with the works, a considerable number of contractors and their workmen will be employed and accommodation will need to be found. Much of the work, we anticipate, will be going on near seaside resorts where the problem of finding accommodation for labour will be increasingly difficult as the year goes on. To avoid delays, therefore, I may authorise river boards to construct temporary housing accommodation. I hope the House will agree that these powers to authorise the construction of embankments and ancillary works under the special procedure of the Bill are justified by the urgency of the situation.
Having said that, I want to make it abundantly clear that we are anxious that as soon as is reasonably practicable boards should revert to the ordinary procedures open to them under the existing law. Under the Bill, therefore, authorisations may at present only be given during the year 1953 and the "works period" in which things authorised may be done will end on 30th June, 1954.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does that mean that the work has to be completed by next June?

Sir T. Dngdale: I will come to that. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait a few moments and then, if the matter is still not clear, I will give way again.
Under the Bill, authorisations may at present be given only during the year 1953 and the "works period" in which things authorised may be done will end on 30th June, 1954. The rate at which work may

progress is completely unpredictable, however, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) knows, and we cannot tell now what setbacks we may suffer from weather or other adverse conditions.
For instance, a severe storm next winter might involve a really serious setback to the work. Those who are technically equipped to understand this problem know that when we deal with water we run up against all sorts of difficulties that cannot be predicted. For these reasons provision is made to enable me, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to extend the period in which authorisation may be given or the works period by 12 months; but to do that we have to come back to the House.
The reason we have put in these dates is to convince the House how important the Government feel it to be that this should be only a temporary, an emergency provisions, Bill for which, we hope, we have the support of the House, to get the job done. Moreover, we do not want to go too far into the distant future because, as the Home Secretary announced, we have set up this committee under Lord Waverley to consider the long-term programme of our coast defences.
There will be some cases where it may be necessary to build a second line of defence or, indeed, to alter the existing sea embankment. In doing so we may have to interfere with a public highway. Provision is, therefore, made in Clause 2 for a combined operation with the Minister of Transport in matters of that kind. Similar combined action may be necessary in one or two isolated cases where work has to be done in navigable waters which might involve the building of a dam across a creek. We anticipate those will be very few, but there may be such cases. We have power to deal with them jointly with the Minister of Transport.
The Bill includes a number of provisions regarding notices of intention to do work, the use of private roads, the exclusion of the public from sites of works, and the prevention of damage to anything that may be done under a works authorisation. In addition, we make it clear that land acquired for doing work of any of the kinds specified in Clause 1 is within the existing powers of acquisition already possessed by river boards.


At the same time the Bill will give the owner of land certain rights under Clause 6 (2) to require the river board to purchase land on which work has been done under a works authorisation on bank construction.
The House will agree that it is right and proper that appropriate recompense should be made to the owner of land that is used for digging clay or other material, or as a site of temporary hutments for housing contractors' labour. At this stage we cannot clearly foresee all the circumstances that will have to be covered, and provision is, therefore, made in Clause 10 by which I can make an order, subject to the affirmative approval of Parliament, specifying what compensation should be paid for any damage, or diminution in the value of land caused by the exercise of the powers contained in the Bill.
In considering what I have said about Part I, I would remind the House of the urgency and variety of the task that faces river boards in the immediate future. The Government have sought throughout to match their actions with the magnitude of the disaster that occurred just two months ago. In view of the emergency. Her Majesty has consented that the Bill should bind the Crown, except in regard to Clause 7. It is understood that this provision will not be taken as a precedent.
River boards and the Ministry have taken on their shoulders an immense responsibility for action to guard against a recurrence of the flood disaster. Today, I can give no assurance to the House that we shall succeed, but the assurance I can give and I will give is that if we do fail it will not be for want of trying, and it will not be for the want of those concerned on the river boards along our coasts to try to the utmost to see that our defences are in proper condition to withstand the weather of next winter.
I am sorry to detain the House so long, but this is a complicated Measure to deal with briefly. I turn from defences against the sea to Part II, which deals with the repairing of the havoc that was caused to farm land when the sea broke through on the night of 31st January. Various figures have been mentioned as to the area that has been flooded. I think the most accurate I can give the House after all the assessments that have been made is that all told about 158,000 acres were

flooded. About one-third or slightly more was land destined for a tillage crop, and the rest was pasture or rough grazings. The House will agree that it is a very serious matter to have an agricultural area of this size out of action at any particular time, and this is bound to mean a considerable loss of food production, whatever measures we may adopt.

Mr. Percy Wells: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of it was orchard land?

Sir T. Dugdale: Not without notice. I will get the figure before the end of the debate. It was not a very great deal.
I am sure that the farming community in the flooded areas, given the necessary help by the Government, will face their misfortunes with the energy, initiative and resource that we have come to expect of them. In the first place, substantial relief is available to farmers from the Lord Mayor's Fund, which will bear the expense of repairs to farmhouses and cottages, farm buildings, harvested grain, hay in rick, stocks of feedingstuffs, fertilisers and similar requisites, as well as machinery and other equipment. These will be covered, like the stock in trade of other businesses, up to a maximum of £5,000. If personal hardship is involved, the Lord Mayor's Committee will also consider sympathetically grants for losses in excess of £5,000. In addition, farmers will get grants for the actual loss of livestock.
To bring the land into productivity is a national responsibility, and the Government intend to treat it as such, and this is the purpose of Part II. Our own agricultural scientists have been applying their knowledge and skill to this difficult problem, and, in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union, have produced an advisory leaflet on the treatment of land flooded by sea water. It has been given wide circulation in the areas concerned. I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that I should take this opportunity to express the grateful thanks not only of the Government but also of all hon. Members for the valuable assistance that has been given to us by experts from the Netherlands and France and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. They have visited this country to give us the benefit of their accumulated knowledge, and


their experience in the past has been a tremendous help to us in our difficulties today.
Just how serious has been the damage to the soil, and what treatment it will need, and for how long, depends upon very many factors, but I am afraid that, among others—it sounds like a contradiction in terms—the recent drought since the time of the floods will undoubtedly retard restoration of productivity. Broadly speaking, we expect to find that a limited amount of the arable land may be able to produce a crop of some sort this year, and that within two years much of the flooded area will be fit for ordinary cultivation if it is properly nursed back to health. There will remain some land that cannot be fully restored for a further two, and possibly three, years. That is the problem.
The first thing to do, in our view, is to get the main and subsidiary drains and the farm ditches running freely again so as to achieve the maximum dispersal of the salt-laden water when the rains come. The Government will bear the full cost of clearing out silt and other flood-borne debris. For other field drainage work, grants to drainage authorities and private individuals will be raised from the usual rate of 50 per cent. to 75 per cent.
Once the field drains are running freely again, the application of gypsum to the land will speed up the process of recovery of soil structure. Supplies of gypsum will be provided free of cost where it is needed.I had hoped to be able to tell the House today something of the quantity of gypsum which was likely to be the right use of that commodity on the land, but there are so many opinions about it at the moment that I think I had better not give any figure. What it comes to is that if the land is very badly salt-impregnated, the amount of gypsum required is that which will absorb itself during a year, and then we can repeat the dose in the following year to better effect. We are satisfied that the supplies of gypsum are adequate to the need.
The Government have also decided that the best way to promote the reconditioning of the flooded land—that is, in the long-term—is by a scheme of acreage payments varying according to the nature of the land and the treatment

required. Part II of the Bill will provide the statutory sanction for the proposed scheme or schemes. One or more schemes can be made over the period 1953–57 for acreage payments to fanners who conform to an approved programme of husbandry. This may take the form of resting the land, laying it down to pasture or sowing a crop.
It is expected that these payments will progressively diminish as the process of rehabilitation becomes increasingly effective and the land regains its productivity. Different rates of payment may be made according to the way in which the land has to be treated, and according to the crop sown. Provision will be made in the scheme for payments to be reduced, withheld or recovered in circumstances to be prescribed, such as the adoption of unwise methods or negligent cultivation or harvesting.
In the debate on 23rd March some questions were asked about allotments. I should like to clear that point up now. Allotment holders will be able to get free gypsum, for which other provision is made—it does not come within the Bill —and it is also intended that financial assistance under Part II of the Bill will be available for reconditioning allotment land where that is necessary. We cannot deal with hundreds of very small parcels of land, but we propose that acreage payments should be available to allotment societies, local authorities and others covering blocks of allotments on parcels of land of not less than half an acre. If necessary—I tell the House straightaway that it may be necessary—to remove any doubts a suitable Amendment to the Bill will be moved in Committee.
Clause 14 makes it clear that Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies to the rehabilitation of flooded land. I hope and believe that it will not be necessary to exercise these special powers. I would much prefer to rely on the good sense of the farmers, but if restoration of the flooded land is to be accepted as a national responsibility, the House will agree that the Government must be able to deal effectively with the few—I expect it will be very few—who take the wrong road.
So much for this part of the Bill itself. I think it would be the wish of the House


that I should mention the kind of acreage payments scheme the Government have in mind for 1953. We propose to divide the land into four categories: (a) Where there were crops in the ground on 31st January, 1953; (b) Where the land was under grass on 31st January; (c) Where approved crops can be sown this year on land that was bare on 31st January; and (d) Bare land on 31st January that cannot be used for a crop or for grazing in 1953. There will be varying rates of payment for different crops or groups of crops. I have arranged for the convenience of the House, for a detailed statement giving the proposed rates of acreage payments to be available in the Vote Office, and it should be available now.
This is entirely for the convenience of hon. Members, because the necessary scheme will not be laid before the House until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. It should give substantial assistance towards the restoration of the agricultural land in the flooded areas and should be sufficient to enable farmers to remain in occupation of their holdings.
There are two other points to round off the story which are not really applicable to the Bill. I should like to say a word about orchards and things of that sort. Orchards and bush fruits will be dealt with outside the Bill and the Government will bear the cost of grubbing up the ruined trees and bushes, of treating the land and of the cost of replanting. We shall also bear, as the Home Secretary has announced, the reasonable cost of fences to replace destroyed hedges and repairs to existing fences, and this category will include farm roads about which. I understand, there has been considerable anxiety.
I hope the House will agree that this is a comprehensive and satisfactory approach to this problem. In one way or another the restoration of the land should be covered and the Prime Minister's pledge carried out in the spirit in which it was given. I can, therefore, confidently commend the Bill to the House as a very necessary emergency measure to deal with our future defence against the seas and with the ravages that have already been made on our productive farmland.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: We are all very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained this very complicated and important Measure to the House. Whatever we think of him as a Minister of Agriculture and as a Tory Minister of Agriculture at that, as a Parliamentarian we always find him very helpful and a great pleasure to listen to and to follow.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a very important and in some ways a very far-reaching Measure. Its far-reaching nature is, of course, justified by the size of the problem which we must tackle. The figures that he gave show that 1,000 miles of coastline are affected to some degree or another, and that brings us up against the fact that we cannot afford to deal with this problem in a way which would leave us improperly protected in facing the bad weather which might come next autumn and winter, although in this country we have an infinite variety of weather and one winter is seldom the same as its predecessor.
Nevertheless, we must deal with our sea defences in the meantime. We on this side of the House appreciate the need for drastic measures and urgent action. We shall do everything to help the passage of this Bill, and, indeed, will do our utmost to co-operate with the Government since this is in no sense a party Measure. It is something which we are all in together.
I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying a very great tribute to the local authorities, to the river boards, and to the engineers of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, among them many of my own friends, for the job which they did in this emergency. I saw them at work in a similar emergency in 1947, although from a different cause, and I came then to have a tremendously high regard for the various drainage engineers and officers of the river boards and other drainage authorities, and an especially high regard for the engineers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. We ought to put on record that we all recognise that they met this challenge and test in an extremely fine way.
As I have said, we want to help with this Bill, but inevitably a speech made from this side of the House, no matter


who makes it, is bound to sound a little like criticism of the Bill. One cannot make a speech saying that this is a difficult situation and that we must take drastic powers, and then, having agreed with each other, sit down. The Bill makes some tremendous changes, at any rate for a short time, in the rights of the ordinary individual and, therefore, it will look as though we are concentrating mostly on what the Bill is to do in that way rather than on the size of the job to be done. I merely make that explanation of what I am about to say about this Bill, because it in no way qualifies what I have said: that our intention is to get something on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.
It is one thing to say that we have an emergency and that we must face it as an emergency. It is quite another to say that the way in which we must act is by wiping off for a time all the legislative safeguards that we have provided to see that ordinary mean and women are not pushed around too much by officialdom, however good their intentions. Therefore, the House is bound to examine this Bill a little closely because it does a very great deal about that.
The Bill does two things. It concentrates responsibility for our sea defences in these specified areas into the hands of one authority, whereas at the moment they might be in the hands of a number of authorities like the river boards and the coast protection authorities. We concentrate power in one authority which may well be a good thing, but that authority has the right to proceed, without having regard to the various safeguards already established in the law for the protection of private persons. That, in fact, is all the Bill does.
It does not add very much, if at all, to the way in which the authority is charged with the job and the way it will do the job. Indeed, the authority will have those powers and will have the staff and, presumably, it will get on with the job. Whether it could have got on with the job in the past quickly enough, whether the danger was recognised or whether there was some element of Government economy which held schemes back—there have been some exchanges about that already in the House—I do not propose to go into this afternoon, but it has already got the power.
Therefore, what we are doing is, not agreeing to a new way of protecting our sea defences in the light of this emergency; we are merely making procedural alterations in the way in which the emergency should be faced and the job carried out. It remains to be seen how far that by itself is necessary in order to get the job done or how far it is, in fact, going to go.
I am a little puzzled about one point, and I will ask whoever is to reply for the Government to take us a little into the Government's confidence and tell us something more about the proposal to concentrate all the work in the hands of one authority, namely, the river board. I have very great regard, and always have had, for the river boards as authorities. In many ways I think they are well suited to the job from their knowledge, their experience and their size. We have got to recognise what the law is on coast protection and what it will be when the emergency period for which these powers have to operate is over. I am a little concerned about what is to happen then.
As the position is now, the low-lying land, such as the estuaries, is the responsibility of the river boards, and they have the power to deal with it under the River Boards Act. Some other land, that, for example, in some of the seaside resorts, is the responsibility, not of the river boards, but of the coast protection authority, so designated under the Act of that name which was passed by this House in 1949. Under Clause 1 of this Bill the whole job will now pass to the river boards, particularly where it deals with land damaged by flooding or where the sea defences have proved to be inadequate.
That means that the river boards will take over the responsibility which the law at the moment places on the coast protection authority. There is no provision in the Bill for consultation between the two; for the one to tell the other what it is doing; and for the one to get the authority of the other for what it is doing. This Bill is quite different from the Coast Protection Act in that respect.
It is made a little more complicated by the fact that when the river board has done its work and the emergency is over there is provision for continuing the


maintenance. I am going to ask a particular question on that in a moment, but what the Bill provides is that the river board, without a limit of time—and that may mean for ever and ever—may have access to the works which under emergency powers were erected to protect the countryside.
What happens to the coast protection authority then? This Bill will last until June, 1955, and then there will be nothing more in this Bill to apply. We shall be back to the Coast Protection Act, 1949. The coast protection authority will be the authority responsible, but the river board will have got this continuing right to go into the area of the coast protection authority for the purpose of maintenance to works put up under this Bill.
I cannot help feeling that this is bound to create a good deal of confusion once the Bill has run out, unless the work put up in the area of the coast protection authority passes to that authority, since it will have inherited powers under the 1949 Act. I should have thought it absolutely essential that there should be consultation about the job, and about joint activity at this stage, so that there will be no chance of one authority thinking that the other one has been riding roughshod over them. Anybody who has had to do with drainage engineers knows that one thing is certain, which is that no two engineers ever agree how to deal with a drainage job. The more distinguished they are the more true that is. Each has a different view. It is therefore most important that they shall march hand in hand at this stage.
Will the Solicitor-General tell us why the coast protection authorities have been left out of the Bill? I should have thought in the light of the 1949 Act that they ought to be in and ought to have emergency powers. If the answer is: "We thought it easier to get the job done quickly by concentrating everything in the hands of a larger authority," then at least have provision for consultation, and a clear view of who is responsible. I would point out to the Minister that the Coast Protection Act, 1949, envisaged this very situation and that in Section 5 (6) there is specific provision that the coast protection authority may, in an emergency,

do any work without having regard to any of the safeguards.
I am not clear why we must have a drastic Bill of this kind when we appear to have on the Statute Book already specific legislative provision to enable a coast protection authority to act quickly and without being subject to the lengthy notice and consent procedure. The reason I like that Measure better is that it specifically provides for consultation among the various types of authority. The Bill does not, and I should have thought that the other pattern ought to be followed.
If the Solicitor-General or the Minister can manage it, perhaps he can put something into HANSARD in the form of a progress report about what is being done under the Act of 1949. I am not clear how many joint boards have been established. I saw an answer to a Question, from which it looked as though only three had been established. How many schemes have been authorised and have been given grant which the Government are willing to pay, and what work has been done? That kind of information about what coast protection authorities have been doing will be of very considerable use to us.
I turn to the general powers which the Bill gives to selected river boards. Of course it may be said that the sea does not give any notice. It comes up and washes into a house and does not worry about consent or 14 days' notice. The people who may be pushed about under the Bill are precisely the people who have already been pushed about by the sea. One does not want them to be pushed about a second time administratively just because it looks as though we are matching the vigorous nature of the sea. There may be good reasons for not doing so. Administrators and officials generally, and I suppose politicians too, always like a good atmosphere when they clear the decks for action, and to be able to do this, that and the other without being held up. We may have a vested interest in this business of getting very wide powers.
Two things affect seaside resorts. One is that a river board can go in if the esplanade has been damaged. Only the river board appears to have the power. Will that power be used to prevent sea-


side resorts getting on with the job themselves? The second point I have in mind is the provision for excluding the public from a site. The Bill specifically says that one purpose for which they cannot be allowed in, although they are owners or owners' friends, is for pleasure.
There is no provision for consulting the seaside resorts about that. If the river board happens to be doing work on the pleasure front of a resort and chooses to say, without consultation with anybody: "We are excluding the public from the site of our works," the seaside resort may be in considerable difficulty. I would ask the Solicitor-General for an explanation, and whether he could not provide that the river board shall not do this without consultation with the local authority concerned. Otherwise I can see an extremely difficult position arising.
The Minister told us about two classes of work, bank construction of various types and access road works. There is also earth getting and access road works combined with bank construction. For this category of work, the requirement of consent is almost not there at all. The board can do almost anything without consent or notice. That is not quite the same, or so widely defined, in the case of access road works or temporary housing where it is not combined with bank construction. I would like to have on the record what the words "combined with" mean. Do they actually mean in physical contact with and part of the one thing? Do they mean that the road work must be physically part of the bank or must be physically just behind the bank?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): If the right hon. Gentleman will consult Clause 15 (2) he will see the definition.

Mr. Brown: I was not sure, and I did not know whether the Solicitor-General would be unwilling to define it again.

The Solicitor-General: I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: Yes, I am sure, but I want the Solicitor-General to help in a way which will help me and not leave me still studying for the Bar. Will he be good enough to re-define those words in his speech? It will then be on the record for

others who read HANSARD and may be as limited as I am in regard to the interpretation Clause. I think I understand it, but nobody will suffer. We can give the Solicitor-General an extra 30 seconds to enable him to include it in his final speech.
I want to look at Clause 3 because I am not clear why the provision which covers these works where they are not "combined with" should be taken out of the present legal situation. Where earth getting or access road or temporary housing is to be built inland away from the sea defences, why do we need special emergency provisions? Of course somebody may have thought it a good idea to tidy up the Bill by having emergency powers everywhere, but if I live inland and someone says, "You have a good site from which we can take some earth," all that happens is that I am given notice, an advertisement is put in the newspapers, and, I have 14 days in which to write to the Minister who "shall" or "may" consider the matter. That is the only protection I have against someone deciding arbitrarily to do work on my land, and I am not sure that we need powers of that kind in those circumstances. Therefore I should like the Solicitor-General to explain this more clearly.
On the question of the extension of time, I can see that there ought to be provision to extend the works period. It is now April, and June, 1954, is not far away in view of the size of the works to be carried out. Therefore that provision to extend the works period for another year is a good one. I am not sure, however, whether it is good to have in the Bill a provision to extend the authorisation period for a year from December, 1953.
There are two things about it. There is the objection that we can then go on authorising these wide powers and interfering with the rights of people. If we know what the job is, as we do, those whose job it is to authorise special work being done ought to be able to get those authorisations out by the end of the year. The very fact that there is power to extend the period of authorisation for a year may tend to slow up the job.
On Clause 4, which lays down the conditions under which entry can be obtained, the Government should show why they must have it in this form. A


lot of people will have the right of entry under this Clause. I am tempted to make the kind of speech which the Solicitor-General used to make about general good-will and a sense of responsibility, but I will only commend those interested to read his speeches about people having more and more powers to enter the property of other people. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) may not be able to resist that temptation—

Mr. Bernard Braine: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: Having resisted that temptation, I must say that there are two things about this Clause which occasion us some worry, and the Government must not mind if we go into those in Committee. One is that where the folk concerned want to go into occupied premises, which may be houses or factories, they have only to give 24 hours' notice. Thereafter they have the right to go in on production of the warrant. If they want complete or partial evacuation, which is a tremendously serious thing, they have to give only one month's notice.
If it can be shown that the job cannot be done without those powers, so be it, but it is a great imposition on people, who have already suffered hardship and have been pushed around, if someone comes tomorrow and says. "I must come in the day after." This is an emergency that will run for 18 months possibly—at least 13 months and possibly two years. I hope the Government will not be tied to this Clause and that in Committee they will meet us with an Amendment giving people more protection.
What does Clause 5 involve? It deals with maintenance and says that a river board or authority who do work under a works authorisation shall have the right of access to the things they have left behind, in the case of bank construction, without limit of time. Does that also mean that they have a duty to maintain without limit of time? Many of my friends concerned with this part of the East Anglian coast tell me that one of the problems of those works in the past has been that the maintenance has not been done with the same vigour and to the same standard as the original works. Therefore, imposing a duty to maintain

is as important as a duty to construct or to improve.
What happens seems to be that if the river board chooses to go in to maintain, they have a free right of entry, but there is no specific duty laid on the river board or authority to maintain that work. There ought to be placed on somebody both the right to maintain and the duty to maintain, otherwise we may spend a lot of money only to discover at some future stage that the works have been allowed to get into a bad state of protection again. I also want to know how far the words at the top of page 8 qualify the words on the previous page. Subsection (1, a) says "without limit of time" in the case of bank construction, but at the top of page 8 paragraph (b) says:
and for the purposes of maintenance … the like rights of entry and passage as attach to a works authorisation shall be exercisable during the works period …
If the rights of entry and passage apply only during the works period, what applies without the limit of time for evermore thereafter? We shall be grateful if the Solicitor-General will explain this in his final speech.
I must refer to two other matters on Part I. One is finance. About Clause 11 we know practically nothing. We have to refer to the Memorandum and to what the Home Secretary has been good enough to say from time to time in his many statements to the House on the subject. I do not see why the emergency, and works to be done under it, should be regarded as running to June, 1954, or a year later whereas the undertaking of the Government to pay 100 per cent. runs only to September, 1953. The two periods ought to be coterminous.
If the works so clearly arise out of the emergency that they must be covered by emergency powers for a given period, and if the Government really mean, as I am sure they do, to treat this as a national business, they should do it for the period during which the works have to be done. There is no reason why it should be September, 1953, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us, despite the Memorandum, that he will lay down clearly that he will pay 100 per cent. for all works that have to be done under emergency powers for the period during which the emergency runs. No one wants to see an undue burden fall on the local authorities.
Equally, I do not understand why it should be argued that, where the defences are inadequate and have to be built to an improved standard, that work should come under the emergency powers in the Bill, but the cost of improving should not be borne by the Government under the 100 per cent. arrangement. If we are to treat this on a national basis and we find that the defence standard of 31st January, 1953, was inadequate, we ought not to give anybody an apparent reason for merely reconstructing them to the inadequate standard, but we should set out to get them to build up to the required standard. On the basis of treating it as a national emergency we should make sure that they have an incentive to do as much as is required by including the improvement as well in the 100 per cent. payment. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will think again about that.
So far as the compensation is concerned, this will turn on the regulations. We cannot tell in this Bill what kind of compensation will be available and shall have to wait and see what is produced. First, can we be assured that the regulations will be available before the notices under the authorisations go out? Secondly, could the Minister arrange for an explanatory leaflet about them to be attached to the copy of the notice which the Bill requires to be served on owners or occupiers affected by any reorganisation? People should know as exactly as possible, where they stand, and an explanatory leaflet about the compensation provisions attached to the notice would be acceptable and would save a lot of money and hardship.
That is all I have to say about Part I of the Bill. It is not a Bill with which one can deal easily and quickly. It is a difficult and complicated matter, and we are under the obligation to deal with it thoroughly and I apologise for taking so long.
I turn now to Part II. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this turns wholly upon the scheme that he produces. The fact that 158,000 acres have been inundated with salt water is an extremely serious matter, not only to the farmers who have been affected, but also for the country at a time when we are having a terrific struggle to produce anything like the amount of food that we want.

We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this part of the Bill and for the steps he is taking to see not only that people are compensated and helped in their personal trouble, but that the land, which is a national heritage, is brought back into cultivation as quickly as we can do it.
The scheme, which the Minister has outlined and which is available in the Vote Office, is a scheme for the right hon. Gentleman to make and is to be subject to a negative resolution. It seems to me that the whole "guts" of Part II is in the scheme and not in the Bill, and that we ought to have an opportunity for Parliamentary discussion on the details of the scheme.

Sir T. Dugdale: The reason that it is done in this form is that it follows the 1947 Act, but we are, of course, perfectly prepared to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman in Committee.

Mr. Brown: The first scheme, at any rate, could be an affirmative one, so that we would know that that one, at least, we would discuss. I can look at what is in the Vote Office and we can put down Questions and privately see the right hon. Gentleman, but even in Committee we should not be able to discuss it because it is not in the Bill. If the first scheme is done on an affirmative basis, we do not mind that the rest are being done under the negative procedure.
Next, I should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman has not thought of including in the Bill—this, too, may be in the scheme—provision to enable him to do what was done, and is still done, I believe, on opencast land in cases where the job of restoring it would be tremendous and the financial position of the farmer a bad one; a farmer may, in fact, be left with nothing that is not inundated. Why has the right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of taking over this task through his agricultural executive committees? The Minister could take over the responsibility of farming the land meanwhile and of putting the farmer on a salaried or other basis in the meantime. The National Farmers' Union have suggested that they would like some provision of this kind. It was done for opencast land and it applied in some cases in my constituency. It is a useful thing and in some cases, although not all, more


help could have been given this way than on the basis of the scheme of acreage payments.
We are glad to hear what the Minister said about allotments, which in these matters are so often forgotten. I was grateful for the statement that they will be included, both for free gypsum and for acreage payments, through the societies where the land is more than half an acre in extent. At the moment, however, I do not see that they are covered by the Bill, and it seems that an Amendment will be required. My memory of the allotments legislation reminds me that unless they are included specifically, they will not be covered by the existing words We are glad to know from the Minister, therefore, that there will be an Amendment.
I have done my best to outline the sort of things we want to look at. We arc wholly with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to see this job tackled, and tackled quickly, vigorously and firmly. We do not want to push people around more than is necessary, and we do not want to whittle down the rights of the individual more than we must. Short of that, nobody will seek to take away the credit from the right hon. Gentleman and his Department for the way they have sought to meet the emergency. We shall help the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill on the Statute Book, although we shall ask for some Amendments to be considered.

5.55 p.m.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: I am sure that the country will be very pleased to know from the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that his party do not intend to oppose the Bill. It is essentially a non-party issue; a matter of the sea defences must be tackled purely from a national angle.
I welcome very much, and I am sure that the people in my stricken constituency will welcome, the steps which the Government have taken to tackle this matter urgently. It is essential that our defences should be restored by the time that the next equinoctial gales and tides come upon us towards the end of the year.
There is, however, one point about which I am a little worried, because I

represent a part of the coastline which was excluded from the Coast Protection Act. There is at present in Snettisham an organisation which is taking away shingle from the bank of the sea wall, and as far as I can gather there is no power to stop the company concerned from carrying out that work. It seems to be rather pointless, if we vote large sums to restore our defences—to use the Minister's own words, "to return them to their pre-flood strength"—that at the same time a company is removing sand and shingle from immediately behind the bank at the rate that it is doing. It may be that in that locality the river board intend to build up the second line of defence, in which case the company operating would be outside the main sea defence and would, presumably, continue to operate entirely at its own risk. I shall be grateful if this point can be gone into.
On that particular part of the coast, 5,000 acres were inundated and of the 70-odd people living along that little bit of the foreshore, no fewer than 25 were drowned when the sea came in at that point. I am not saying that the excavation was a direct contribution to the entry of the sea, but opinion locally is that it is having the effect of weakening the defences and I think that it should be stopped. At the moment bulldozers are repairing the shingle bank, while 50 yards inland a dragline excavator is removing the shingle.
In the Bill the Minister talks about bank construction and earth getting. I should like him to consider including also the dredging of the creeks across the saltings that run along the north side of Norfolk. We can build up very strong sea defences, but outlets to rivers must remain; and in the event of strong high tides there is a surge of water through the mouth of a river with the consequent flooding of the grazing land inshore.
Years ago trading schooners used to come up these creeks to the makings and carry out their functions, but for many years now trading schooners have no longer come and the rivers have been allowed to silt up. If the rivers could be dredged to their original depth, the trenches so constructed would act as barriers to the rush of water which comes in times of storm across the saltings and only finishes up against the houses at the head of the creek. That is exactly what


happened on 31st January, and some of them were flooded to a depth of four feet.
Over these 5,000 acres and others which have been inundated in my constituency, at the moment there lie remnants of beach huts and bungalows, some intact and others in pieces, littering the whole of the farmland and causing a very serious financial problem to the fanner who wants to get his land clear. I have noticed advertisements in the local paper, inserted by the owners of the land, calling upon the owners of the property to come and remove it. But that is an impossible situation because one cannot allocate ownership to odd bits of beach bungalows and so on. A very considerable expense faces farmers in getting this enormous amount of broken bungalows, bits of wood and debris of every description off their land. I should like to feel that some consideration for compensation will be given to that question.
I have mentioned a few of the problems which still obtain in my constituency, and I would ask the Minister to take note of these observations.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: It may not be possible to secure complete approval on the detail of any Bill, but those hon. Members who come from areas seriously affected by the disaster of 31st January will welcome the main provisions contained in the Bill now before the House. It was obvious to us who saw the nature and extent of the damage in the rural areas that special measures were needed for putting right the battered sea defences and bringing the very considerable extent of farmland again into production.
I think it is entirely fitting that river boards should play a big part in protecting farmlands from the ravages of the sea. This Bill gives the river boards necessary additional powers. I have seen one of these river boards in action on the Norfolk coast. The board has done, and is still doing, a very good job. Gaps in the defences in an area of my Parliamentary division have been sealed, but the work must be given more of a degree of permanence and this can only be effected by the board being able to go beyond its present powers. It is obvious that much remains to be done, and even when the initial schemes have

been completed doubts are expressed in some quarters whether those schemes will be completely effective by themselves.
A permanent concrete wall, costing about £500,000, is to be built along a section of the Norfolk coast. I understand the work will start as soon as possible, but the Smallburgh Rural District Council, in whose area this is to be, has passed a resolution urging the Ministry of Agriculture, in formulating its scheme for the protection of that section of the coast now under the jurisdiction of the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board, to study the desirability of constructing a second line of defence behind the existing sand hills, as has already been referred to by the Minister. The object of this second line, it is stated, would be to confine the water in the event of a break in the sand hills, which has occurred at the spot three times in living memory.
It is suggested in certain quarters that the Government proposes to give the river boards exceptional powers. Speed is essential in problems of this kind and this problem is vital. It has already been complained that entry on land may be obtained at very short notice to get materials, but I would point out to hon. Members who are concerned about shortage of notice that the sea did not give any notice when it broke through. No notice was given to the unfortunate people who lost their lives, or whose homes were wrecked, or whose land was inundated. I have reached the conclusion that an exceptional situation must be met by exceptional measures, and to this end I think the Bill is drawn on the right lines.
I am glad that the Minister is seeking powers to make schemes over the period 1953 to 1957 for acreage payments to farmers, with a view to securing rehabilitation of agricultural land which has been flooded by salt water and which will not be in a condition to produce food for a very long time. Where the salt concentration was comparatively low, cultivations have been possible, but it is obvious that the heavier land cannot be cropped for a very long time. I approve entirely of the suggested acreage payments. Farmers should not be the losers because the floods have prevented them from farming their land. The thing about


which we should be most concerned is getting the land back into production by treating it in an approved manner. I understand that expenditure on crops in the ground at the time of the floods will be taken into account in fixing the rates of acreage payment. I ask the Minister whether the rent of the tenant farmer who has to pay for land which brings him no return can be taken into consideration in deciding the acreage rates.
So much for the farmer. I now want to say a word or two about the farmworker. It was reported at a recent meeting of the King's Lynn and District Employment Committee that some of the employers in the area whose land had been badly affected by the floods would have difficulty in finding employment for their men this year. Some farmers did discharge their men but, of course, they found other work. I understand that about 1,742 men are still employed on defence work in Norfolk and part of Suffolk and this number will doubtless include a number of unemployed farm-workers.
The chief engineer of the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board said that when the permanent defence works start the number of men employed will be higher still and that 12 different contractors will be undertaking work along the Board's long stretch of coastline during the summer. I am concerned to ensure, as I am sure all hon. Members are, that farm workers unemployed through the floods and to whom there are no acreage payments should be given priority on defence works in their area. It is not necessary for me to remind the House that these men will be wanted on the land again, but if they are driven to other industries they may not return to the farms. That, I am sure the Minister will agree, would be a permanent and serious loss to agriculture. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance on that point. I give my hearty approval to the main provisions of this Bill.

6.10 p.m.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: I appreciate the opportunity of welcoming this Bill, although there are one or two points which I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to elucidate. In particular, I welcome the plan for acreage payments to farmers, smallholders and

allotment holders. None of them seeks to make any profit. All they wish is to be able to bring the land back into production as soon as possible. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has said, the farmers wish to make sure that they can give continued employment to farm workers. In fixing the scale of payment, I am sure the Minister will bear that fact in mind.
Those of us who, for a considerable period, have been concerned with the general problem of the defence of the coast against the sea have always hoped the time would come when one Ministry would be responsible. When the Coast Protection Act was placed on the Statute Book we thought we were moving in that direction. But this Bill has shown we still have not reached the unity of command which some of us believe to be desirable. We now have the situation that the river boards come under the Ministry of Agriculture, but the maritime coast protection authorities come under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Reading the River Boards Act and the Coast Protection Act one might think that neither authority knew of the existence of the other, and in the affected areas there is concern about whether the fullest consultation takes place between the two. Perhaps the discussion on this Bill will remind those concerned that there should be the fullest possible consultation between them.

Mr. A. Bleukinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the Coast Protection Act he will find there is continuous reference to the river boards and their functions.

Brigadier Medlicott: There is necessarily some reference where it is obligatory, but that has not led to the close consultation which will perhaps ultimately come about, and which is obviously desirable.
That brings me to the question of the financial aid for these authorities. I have in mind particularly the scheme mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North. In the Smallburgh district the estimated cost of the work before the flood disaster was £50,000. As a result of the disaster the estimated cost has increased to £500,000. It may be that work of that kind will be taken over by the


river board under the powers contained in this Bill, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that work done by the coast protection authorities attracts a grant of only 80 per cent., whereas the work done under this Bill by the river boards will attract a grant of 100 per cent.

The Solicitor-General: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look again at the statement made by the Home Secretary, he will see that the grant is the same for the same category of work.

Brigadier Medlicott: I am glad of that assurance, as the point was recently put to me by one local authority.

The Solicitor-General: I think that was before the Home Secretary made his statement.

Brigadier Medlicott: I am glad to have that assurance, because otherwise, there would have been a serious discrepancy between the financial assistance available for work done under the two schemes.
One other point I wish to make about the compensatory nature of some of the provisions concerns houses built right on the coast. Far too many houses are constructed on obviously dangerous sites. There are a number of examples in Norfolk. It may well be that such examples will not be repeated in the future, because of the powers contained in planning regulations. But I think it should be made clear to those people who choose to build houses on parts of the coast which are obviously liable to erosion that they must not always expect in the future to be compensated fully for loss which may result.
We are all anxious not to extend emergency powers, especially those of the nature contained in this Bill. But the battle against the sea is in every sense a battle. It is only too true that the sea is cruel and gives no warning. We must take the same precautions as we would take against any other enemy. Nevertheless, the exceptional powers contained in this Bill should not be taken as a precedent.
I know I shall be supported by all hon. Members representing seaside resorts when I say that this Bill contains powers of a drastic and emergency character and unless it is made clear to the contrary the

impression may be given that coastal resorts are still not able to cater for visitors. It should be made plain that in spite of the terrible devastation which they have suffered the great seaside resorts on the East Coast and our inland waterways there are fully capable of receiving all who may wish to visit them. Indeed, the arrival of visitors will be a great contribution towards compensating the people on the coast for something of what they have lost by reason of the floods.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I have spoken on every occasion when we have debated flood damage and I should be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not give a warm welcome to this Bill. It provides an example of how to tackle this sort of emergency. We have promises from the Prime Minister and from the Government and one must give them their full meed of praise for the expeditious way in which they have introduced this Measure.
The Minister said that it would not be the fault of the Government if the Bill was unsuccessful and that he and his colleagues would do their best to see that the measures they put in hand were effective; that there would be no stinting of material, advice, engineering skill or anything else. We on this side of the House will keep the Minister to his promise and shall expect him to implement almost literally the old cliché—that he will leave no stone unturned.
One or two special features in the Bill are of interest to me. In my own constituency there is a clear demarcation of the functions of the coast protection authorities and the river boards. The river boards are concerned with the estu-arial waters, and their duty is mainly to protect agricultural land. On the other hand, the coast protection authority is concerned with erosion. Within the limits of the finance available, and in spite of a shortage of labour, the work has progressed steadily, but not sufficiently speedily in my opinion.
I think this is perhaps a point which might be debated more fully in Committee, but it seems to me that there will have to be some means of linking up the functions of the river boards and the coast protection authority, where these bodies are contiguous. I can give an


example of the case of my own local authority, because the great North Wall, in Lowestoft, was very badly knocked about, and the low-lying land which, in an agricultural area, would normally have been the responsibility of the river board, comes within the borough boundary, and the borough itself, as a coast protection authority, has taken on all the duties in this respect, very largely aided by the grants made available to them under the Coast Protection Act.
One of the main difficulties about the Coast Protection Act for very highly rated local authorities is that there is no grant for maintenance, and my right hon. Friend called attention to the fact that not only the works of the river boards will attract a 100 per cent. grant—and I see the point made by the Solicitor-General a few minutes ago—but that these emergency works are also to attract 100 per cent. grants, whereas the original works, and, presumably, after the emergency powers are dispensed with, works undertaken by coast protection authorities, will not attract grants higher than 80 per cent., though, in some cases, where there are special circumstances, they may be raised.
There is no maintenance grant for coast protection work, and a great deal of the danger that has followed, and, to some extent, the culpability of the local authorities, is due to the fact that the cost of maintenance of coast protection work is so high that the incidence of coast protection rates is an almost insupportable burden.
I want to make a plea for greater co-ordination. It is essential, if we are to have a national scheme of coast defence, that we should not fortify one section of the coast unduly at the expense of another. We have had such instances round our coasts, and there are classic cases which I have quoted to the House in which extensive coast protection works carried out by an authority have resulted in diverting the current flow. The sea will never be cheated, but will always attack at another point along the coast, and that is why I consider that one of the most important things which the Government can do, either in this Bill or other legislation, is to see that all coast defence work is properly co-ordinated. My right hon. Friend asked about how

many joint coast protection authorities were to be set up. I believe there are no joint authorities, but that there are joint committees, and the difference between them is that a joint committee is there for consultation, but that the joint authority is there for action.
I should like to make reference to the question of the standard of work done by 30th September. The standard of work subsisting on 31st January will prove to be quite inadequate, and the extent of the floods showed that this standard of work was inadequate. I would, therefore, urge the Government to give every help and encouragement to local authorities, river boards and coast protection authorities as well in order to see that the standard of work is one which could be declared by competent engineers to be adequate, and that, for the extra work, the Government should be as generous in meeting the cost as they have been over the renovations.
I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the clarity with which he presented it to the House.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: Our discussion so far has concentrated very largely on Part I of the Bill, which, perhaps, is the most important in that it deals with coast defences. In that part of the Bill, emergency powers are taken which are in line with the gravity of the flood situation, but I want to say a few words about Part II, and to ask one or two questions on points about which I am not clear.
This is the part of the Bill dealing with the rehabilitation of agricultural land, and, as with most farming processes in getting land back to fertility after a flood, drainage problems are paramount. I know that they are not referred to specifically in this part of the Bill, but I am not yet very clear about the position of the land owner or tenant with regard to the clearing of the ditches. This problem was originally mentioned in the earlier statement, and there it was said that payment would be made for the clearance of ditches up to 30th April.
That is a very early date indeed, and I hope it will be possible for all these schemes of ditch clearance on farms to go on for a much longer period. This


is work which can be undertaken by the regular staff of the farm, and it is also work which they can do when other work cannot be done, and I therefore hope that no attempt will be made to crowd all this work into a short period or to bring in outside help, when the ordinary farm staff could do it.
The Minister has said that the rate of grant in this particular instance is to be raised from 50 to 75 per cent., but I thought that this work of clearing ditches was to come under the emergency provisions and that a higher rate of grant would be available. I should like to be clear about the final date for this work to be undertaken, and to be told when the 75 per cent. grant will cease and the 50 per cent. grant come in. I have asked previously about the position of internal drainage boards, whose situation in this matter is most important. I imagine that it will be on a par with that of the river boards, but I think that, if a statement can be made on the scope of the internal drainage boards, it will be most welcome.
I want to say a word about the acreage payment question. I welcome this method of dealing with the matter, and I believe that it is preferable to the method advocated in some cases by the National Farmers' Union whereby the work is taken over temporarily, probably by the agricultural executive committee, which have the staff to do the work. I favour this method rather than taking over the land temporarily, because I believe that the land will come back to a full state of fertility better if it is in the care of the man who has the final interest in it and who will see to every detail in the process much better than an outside authority, however well-intentioned, would be able to do.
It strikes me, however, that there ought to be power under a scheme, when it is introduced, to vary some of these charges according to circumstances. The land flooded in my constituency is very low-lying fenland which commands high rents, and upon which is also levied a very high drainage rate. I notice that the payment in a particular year for bare arable land is to be £8 an acre. There are many farms, both large and small, where the combined rent and drainage rate is more than £8. If these charges have still to be paid it would seem that the smallholder is not going to be in a very good position.
One of my constituents who has 14 acres of land, which he cultivates very well, has written to me asking about his position. I have calculated that if he has six acres of wheat, six acres bare for cropping this year and two acres of strawberries, he will receive £228 in the present season. That may seem a fairly substantial payment on 14 acres of land, but if he has his rent to pay, and particularly if he has his drainage rate to pay as well, he will not be in a particularly good position to carry on through the year.
I hope, therefore, that where a high drainage rate has to be paid, an allowance will either be paid to the people who have to pay it or to the drainage board concerned, as, otherwise, one or other of them will be in a very disadvantageous position during the year. In the case of my constituent who has two acres of strawberries, he would receive two payments of £60, making a total of £120. But had he been an intensive producer who was going to crop his land with onions and other vegetables, then he would only have received the bare land payment which, according to my calculation, would have amounted to only £112, instead of £228. I appreciate that there are bound to be these anomalous cases, but I hope that some latitude will be allowed under the scheme for dealing with these special conditions.
Finally, I want to ask a question about orchards. I notice that in previous statements the question of hedges and fences and their restoration has always been coupled with the orchard payment aspect. I am wondering whether it is only with regard to orchards that this special payment for the restoration of hedges and fences applies, or whether it applies to all agricultural land. I am not quite clear from the statements that have been made so far how it works out.
I am glad to see that there is to be a half payment for land which was bare on 31st January, but which is subsequently sown, because I believe that, subject to proper safeguards, it is wise that as much as possible of this land should be cropped. I hope we shall not take the line that people must, of necessity, leave land un-cropped without regard to the amount of salt in it or to the nature of the land itself. I should be grateful if the point about the payments to be made for ditching work could be clarified when the Solicitor-General winds up the debate.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I should like, from these benches, to echo the thanks of the Minister to those foreign experts who came to help us in this matter. I am sure that the whole farming community are grateful to them for their help. I should also like to thank the technical conference set up under Sir James Scott-Watson for the excellent work they did and for the rapidity with which they got out some first-class advice for the farmers. I think that the House ought to thank them for that work.
This Bill has been produced very quickly, and in such circumstances there must obviously be some difficulties. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Department on the framing of this Bill and on the way in which he is proposing to deal with this great national disaster. Having worked in that Department for a little time, I feel that it should be thanked for the way in which it has tackled the matter at a time when it had a number of other matters pressing heavily upon it.
Flooding brings with it many great problems, the solutions to which are not easy to find. It is quite clear that we have got to do everything in our power to bring back the land into its full fruit-fulness as soon as possible. That is a task made necessary by the national food situation; indeed, world food conditions make it absolutely essential. As one hon. Member said this afternoon, we should make it possible for a farmer to live on his land during the time that he is endeavouring to bring it back into full cultivation.
I strongly disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that we might put the farmer on a salary basis during this period. I would rather see him on his farm, making the best possible use of his land as it is brought back bit by bit into fruitfulness.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: But, surely, if the farmer were on a salary basis he would be on his farm. He would be receiving the salary because he was rehabilitating his farm.

Mr. Champion: I think that the acreage payment is the best method, always

provided that it is sufficient to enable the farmer to live on his farm.
I have in mind a farm which I know exceptionally well. It has 200 acres, of which 180 were affected by the flood. The fanner lost a number of heifers in calf for which he will, of course, be compensated out of the Lord Mayor's Fund. But he has 102 head of stock left, and he is faced with the difficult problem of either disposing of that stock, in which case he will, to some extent, have to live out of the proceeds of the sale—and, at the same time, he will have lost some of his capital—or, alternatively, of purchasing foodstuffs in order to keep together a herd which, to him, is a very valuable one.
I have not had time to examine very carefully the paper from the Vote Office which tells us something about the acreage payment. I am sure it is the intention of the Minister that the payment should be of such a character as would enable this farmer to maintain his herd in the interests of the community.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the first scheme, at any rate, ought to come to this House in such a way as will enable us to discuss it under the affirmative procedure. The Minister indicated that that was his intention and perhaps in Committee he will accept or himself move an Amendment which will enable us to discuss this matter under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
I should like to add to the point which was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) on grants being raised to 75 per cent. I understood the Minister to say, and I have understood that it was the intention and the policy of the Government, that the Government would accept full responsibility for the rehabilitation of land and doing certain works. But a 75 per cent. grant does not represent the acceptance of full responsibility. It is absolutely essential, particularly in the clearance of silt from tile drains, that the full rate should apply.

Sir T. Dugdale: A grant of 100 per cent. is given in the case of ditches blocked by silt and 75 per cent. for the clearance of ditches outside the flooded area.

Mr. Champion: That clears that point and I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
I should like to know whether, in the scheme which he will produce, the Minister will make it possible for farmers to have nitro-chalk and super-phosphates supplied free where, under the scheme, they are expected to use those dressings. I had intended to ask a question about gypsum treatment, but I am glad that the Minister has made the point relating to that quite clear to us. We shall examine the Bill very carefully between now and the Committee stage and there, perhaps, submit necessary Amendments. I welcome the Bill on behalf of the farming community who are affected by its provisions and I assure the Minister that we on this side will do our best to see that the Bill is placed on the Statute Book.

6.42 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the Bill and appreciates the difficulty which the Government have had in producing such a complicated Measure so quickly. Nevertheless, there are many things which, with the best will in the world, we will try to bring forward as Amendments during the Committee stage.
I should like to speak for a few minutes on one aspect of the Bill which is almost fundamental. My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate, said that this was an enabling Bill to enable his instruments, the rivers boards, to repair the sea defences. I am not quoting his words, but he said, in effect, that although we must do this work very quickly we must not go too far, because Lord Waverley and his committee would tell us what to do as a long-term policy.
I want to say just this to the Minister— that the country is to spend a vast sum of money on this work during the next year or 18 months and that it is now, when discussions are taking place between his Ministry and the boards, that work is being carried out which will determine what the sea defences of the country will look like for many years to come. The Minister and the Solicitor-General are walking hand in hand up the garden path if they think that the country will provide large sums of money for further extensions and improvements after these defences are put in order. Things may look rosy enough now, but I think that in two years' time the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it very

difficult to obtain great sums of money for this work.
I would press on the Minister, therefore, that he should take the opportunity now, while the boards are coming to him, to discuss the details and to obtain approval for their authorisation. Now is the time when he should take into consultation local authorities, planning authorities and the like. The object of and the motto for this operation should be that improvements should be sought and should not be considered to be something to be frowned on. We must try to wring some advantage out of this disaster. We are spending vast sums and the country wants better sea defences by the time all this money has been spent.
I should like to raise one or two specific points. The first is that I cannot find anything in the Bill about any compensation for those quite serious and, I suppose, sometimes slightly unlawful acts which river boards have been forced to take in their recent active battle against the sea. There could not be consultations about pushing down a house when one wanted to save acres of land. Things had to be done, risks had to be taken and the emergency had to be met. I should like to have the assurance of the Solicitor-General that that type of compensation is fully covered in the schemes which are to be produced.
Secondly, I ask whether the Solicitor-General can tell me that compensation will be available for those portions of land and those houses which are now, or may be eventually, outside the main sea wall. As has been indicated, there have been plans in some places to straighten the sea wall or to build a second and stronger sea wall behind the lighter, frontal wall. What is to happen to the houses and land in front of the new main sea wall? Are the owners to be compensated? All of us would like to have an answer on that point.
I have also a specific question on Part II of the Bill. I was a little worried when, in his intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), the Minister referred to drains outside the flooded area. That was the very thing about which I wanted to ask the Minister. Part II of the Bill is designed to assist in the case of land which has been flooded. In some of these very flat parts


of the country the drains are very deep and they go back many miles inland. One of the things which we have learned to dread in those parts which get flooded from time to time is the salt water that runs up the drains.
When there is plenty of water in the drains the salt content appears to be practically non-existent even on analysis, but as soon as the summer comes and the water runs away there is a very strong salt content in the remaining water in the drains and if beasts drink it that may be the end of them. Two-thirds of the land is grazing land and it is vitally valuable to agriculture, because this is where farmers turn out their beasts in the summer. Although this land was not actually flooded they will not be able to do that because the drains are full of salt.
This is a problem which needs careful consideration. I do not think that the land can be considered to be flooded land, but the deep drains and ditches all round it are full of salt and in many cases, where there is no water laid on, the existence of that salt will make it impossible for farmers to turn out their beasts this summer. I ask the Minister to give the problem careful consideration. It is another example of trying to reap advantage out of disaster when I ask him to speed up where possible the provision of a piped water supply. That must be done some time; why not now?
The last points which I want to make relate to men who have been working on the farms. It is a great problem. Much has been said in the House about men leaving the land. Those of us who live among the agricultural workers realise what a great problem and tragedy this is. The effects of this disaster will add to the drift away from the land. I am aware that immediately after the disaster efficient steps were taken to continue the deferment of men from doing their National Service, and I should like to know whether that deferment can be continued for an even longer period. For how long will the deferment continue of these men who are employed working on the banks? The men want to know, and they ought to be told. They ought to know whether they will have an opportunity to return to agriculture if they so wish.
I welcome this Bill. I believe it will be of great help, and I sincerely hope that the Government will treat these very human problems with great sympathy and understanding.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: As a representative of an industrial inland area, I feel inclined to apologise for intervening in this debate in the presence of these hon. Members who represent coastal areas.
I want to put a point that has not been made in this debate, and it relates to retrospection. I represent a constituency in Lancashire which, in 1947, was very badly affected by floods. The people of Salford went through a very bad time indeed. It was not in any way due to the action of the sea but to the action of a river, the River Irwell. It does not contain any salt. In fact, it is so close to the Manchester Ship Canal that I sometimes wonder what it does contain.

Mr. Ede: Everything but salt.

Mr. Royle: It is a miserable river, and industrialists between its source and the City of Salford pour all kinds of pollution into it. Whether it was due to the pollution or not I do not know, but in the autumn of 1947 that river overflowed its banks to such an extent that thousands of the homes of the inhabitants—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On studying the title of the Bill, I find that it is:
A Bill to make provision for work for defence against sea water in localities affected by the flood of January, 1953 …
On this matter, therefore, the hon. Member must draw his remarks to a very speedy close.

Mr. Royle: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, I have no other remarks to make. I was taking advantage of the accepted custom of the House that in a Second Reading debate one may discuss what is not in a Bill as well as what is in a Bill. Therefore, I thought I might have your generosity and that I might be allowed to draw attention to the fact that floods had occurred in this country apart from those caused by the sea, and that constituencies thus affected might have the consideration of the Minister retrospectively. However, Mr. Speaker, I must of course bow to your Ruling.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him along the course of his river. I am sure that if I did, Mr. Speaker, you would very quickly pull me up. I hope it will be taken as a tribute to the Bill, and to the admirable speeches of my right hon. Friend the Minister and of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) if I confess that there is not very much left for me to say. There are, however, one or two points on which I should like a little clarification.
First, this Bill gives, it is true for only a limited period, very sweeping powers indeed—powers far more sweeping than the House would be willing to accord except for the very special purpose for which the Bill is designed. Thus, Clause 4 authorises the river boards
to do any work … subject to any conditions which it appears to the Minister … to be expedient to attach thereto….
I thought it a little odd that we should hear a Conservative Minister arguing, quite properly in this instance, that there was a case for compulsory purchase powers to be used very drastically in the terms of this Bill, and a right hon. Gentleman opposite arguing, also very properly, that the greatest possible care should be taken to safeguard individual rights. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper really made my speech for me, because ever since I have been in this House I have been concerned to raise a voice—a feeble one, it is true—on behalf of those who, from time to time, are subject to compulsory purchase powers. On this issue I endorse every single word uttered by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am not going over the ground that the right hon. Gentleman covered so adequately, but, looking at Clause 4 (3), (b) and (c), it occurs to me—I have a particular instance in mind—that people who have already suffered great discomfort as a result of the floods and who have already been pushed out of their homes and subjected to considerable distress and loss, possibly even the loss of their loved ones, may find themselves subject to these powers and be required to evacuate their homes within a month

without any guarantee that they will be properly rehoused. Surely that is asking this House to approve very sweeping powers indeed.
Although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been most solicitous on behalf of my constituents in trying to arrange housing for those whose homes have been totally destroyed in the floods, there are still families formerly living on Canvey Island and now living in billets or lodgings, perhaps separated from one another, who have not yet been found alternative accommodation. Only today I learned that the Basildon Corporation, which is a housing authority in my constituency, has found it possible to allocate a small number of houses to meet the need. For that I am very grateful indeed
A considerable time has elapsed, however, since the floods occurred and there are still people who need to be rehoused. Yet under the powers envisaged in this Bill it will be possible for others to be turned out of their homes within a month and there appears to be no guarantee that they will get alternative housing. I appreciate that this point is perhaps rather a fast one and I do not expect a snap answer tonight. But I do expect the Government to give consideration to this matter. A solution will have to be found between now and the Committee stage.
There are two other small points I should like to raise. The first may have some relevance to other constituencies as well as my own. In my constituency there is a place called Benfleet, which adjoins Canvey Island. There was quite considerable flooding in Benfleet— although nobody heard about it—in a creak which runs along the back of the High Street. The same thing occurred two or three years ago. I wrote to the Essex River Board about this flooding and I learned that the properties concerned are not within the internal drainage district, that no rate is levied on them in respect of drainage works carried out by the Board which does not maintain the wall along the creek as land drainage works. This part of Benfleet has suffered from flooding on several occasions in recent years and I should like to know whether the Bill empowers the Board to undertake protective work of this kind.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that gypsum would be made available to approved allotment societies or other recognised bodies. Canvey Island possesses the greenest grass and the finest roses in England—at least that is what I am told, and I am quite willing to believe it. The local horticultural society have made representations to me, pointing out that gardens and plots smaller than those which appear to be envisaged under the scheme by which gypsum is to be made available are seriously affected. Will it be possible for gypsum to be made available to them? Perhaps the scheme could be made a little more elastic, particularly as there is a large population on Canvey Island, whose gardens and allotments are small.
I should like to endorse what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott). I hope that this debate will not give rise to the impression that the places where these works are to be carried out will be unsuitable for visitors this summer. My information in regard to Canvey Island—which is a notable and growing holiday resort—is that the islanders are preparing to receive more visitors this summer than ever before. When the Solicitor-General speaks I hope he will make it plain that although these essential works will be carried out people need not be deterred from flocking to the holiday resorts in the afflicted areas.
This is an excellent Bill, and a timely one. In his opening remarks my right hon. Friend said that the Government sought to match their actions to the magnitude of the disaster. They have done precisely that. I welcome the Bill.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I am sure the House will be glad to hear that, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), my speech, which looked quite respectable an hour ago, now hardly exists.
In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend said that there was no guarantee that we should be able to seal the gaps by September, 1953, I am sure that we should all agree that the Government

should take any powers they think necessary to seal those gaps by the time of the equinoctial gales.
My right hon. Friend made a hopeful forecast with regard to the 158,000 acres which have been flooded. I want to ask him one agricultural question. Will the Government bear the responsibility for payment in respect of the removal of deposits of sand and silt from land as well as from drains? I have in mind cases where the sea passed over land before going on elsewhere, leaving sand, stones and all kinds of rubbish behind it. Will that land be cleared at Government expense?
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) mentioned the difficulties of co-ordination between river boards and coast protection authorities, and I hope that we shall get a reassurance on that point from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The right hon. Member for Belper also mentioned joint advisory committees in relation to coast protection. I believe that the committee in Yorkshire, which represents the six local authorities in my constituency, is the only joint advisory committee on the whole of the East Coast.
I want to reinforce a point which was made by several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott). My only-regret about the Bill is that it provides exceptional powers and Government grants to prevent one form, and one form only, of ravage by the sea. Its first object is to prevent low-lying land from flooding, but coast protection is necessary for other reasons than those which we have heard several times during this debate. It would be quite impossible for us to protect the whole coastline, because the cost would be out of proportion to the value of the land we should save. As I see it, protection from erosion will be possible only for the more vulnerable and valuable areas. Could my hon. and learned Friend tell us clearly what provisions exist for the protection of property which is equally valuable and which has been seriously threatened and in many cases destroyed by the recent floods?

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Like other hon. Members, I will be very brief. I also welcome this Bill though, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) there are certain points which we shall have to examine very closely during the Committee stage. None of us likes emergency powers, and we must do everything we can to see that the rights of individuals are safeguarded—but those are purely Committee points.
I want to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). Every effort should be made to see that the permanent work will be finished as speedily as it can be—if possible, before the September tides. This matter is causing very great anxiety in most of the affected areas.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper pointed out, there seems to be no co-ordination between the river boards and the coast protection authorities, but there is also another lack of liaison. There appears to be no co-ordination, no sharing of information, between the river boards and the urban district authorities. I am full of admiration for the river boards and especially for the one which covers my area. The Essex River Board had been in existence for only 18 months and it did a very good job indeed; but more liaison might be established between the boards and the local authorities.
My own local authority of Thurrock is responsible for a stretch of no fewer than 17 or 18 miles of river front. I suppose that they could not get a representative without changing the statute of the river board, but perhaps some arrangement might be reached whereby when the board reports to the Minister a copy or a precis of the report might be sent to the local authority so that they will not always be kept in the dark.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) was right to emphasise the importance of liaison between the river boards and the local authorities. I also admire the work done by the Essex River Board, but one felt that there were occasions, even during the emergency, when the liaison between the municipalities and the boards could have been closer.
I sincerely welcome the Bill. In my constituency, although happily we suffered no loss of life, there was considerable damage in the industrial quarter of Colchester. The damage was estimated at about £250,000, including loss of profits. That is a substantial amount for a relatively small industrial area. One of the considerations which we felt was most important, apart from the immediate help from compensation, was that we should ensure that action was taken speedily to prevent a recurrence of the disaster.
For that reason, we heartily welcome the action the Government have taken to try to deal with the matter before the next high tides and gales are due in the autumn. I wish to mention one matter to which I do not think the Minister referred. The whole of the burden of taking the precautionary action is placed on the river boards. I should have thought that a certain responsibility rests on people whose property, especially factories, are threatened by future flooding. I know that those people would be most anxious to help to ensure their protection for the future if it were made possible for them to do so and if they were encouraged to take action.
Under Clause 2 (4) the Minister is to be entitled to authorise either the river boards or the highway authority or any other authority—presumably that could include individuals—to take certain action. Would it be possible for him to consider authorising individuals as well as river boards to take action to protect their property? Clearly that would be in the interests of their neighbours also. Would it be possible, if necessary, to help to finance them to do so?
In our case it was the lack of certain protective works in connection with one industrial installation that led to the flooding of all the factories further up the river. I suggest that it would be helpful to include individual property owners and factory owners in the scheme. That would not only make the precautions more secure, but it would enable the work to be done more quickly. Although people will take such steps as they can in the circumstances to prevent a recurrence of the flooding, co-operation among as many people as possible would make the result more effective.
Perhaps this is not merely a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It is a matter which ought perhaps to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are good arguments in favour of the proposition that any expenses involved in the provision of flood protection for factories should be considered for taxation purposes. That would be of considerable encouragement to people to assist in what is a great campaign.
My main purpose in speaking, apart from mentioning that matter, was to welcome the Bill. It is clear evidence of the Government's energy and determination to ensure that the sort of problems which affected so many parts of the country last spring will not occur again if it is humanly possible to prevent them.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): The Minister must feel that he is almost submerged by expressions of good will for his Bill. Although I have some criticisms to make, I do not suppose that I shall disturb the general atmosphere of sweetness. I want to deal with that part of the Bill which covers sea defences. I have had some contact in the past with this question when the House was considering what is now the Coast Protection Act. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will be able to give further information about some of the matters which have already been discussed.
We could summarise part of the debate by saying that there are four main issues about which there are some doubts. First, there is the question of what is to be the relationship between the river boards, and the powers with which they are provided under the Bill, and the existing authorities—the coast protection authorities and the local authorities, who are doing the work. Secondly, there is the question of the period within which the 100 per cent. grants are to be made available and the question of whether the actual period is to be reconsidered.
Thirdly, there is the question about interference with individual rights. I cannot help feeling that if we on this side had been introducing a Measure of this kind a great number of hon. and learned

Gentlemen in the party opposite would have been expressing their horror at some of the provisions, and none less than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, who is shaking his head. Finally, there is the question mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) about taking advantage of the emergency and ensuring that the work done is of proper standard and not necessarily merely up to the standard of the work done before the disaster.
I also want to deal with the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) about consultation with coast protection authorities. This is a matter of real importance. Whether it be low lying land, agricultural or built-up land, the great danger is that action taken in one area without proper consultation with others to the north and south, on the coastline and so on, may have a most serious and detrimental effect.
In previous debates hon. Members on both sides have quoted occasions on which certain authorities have, under the 1949 Act, done a great deal to ensure the maintenance of their sea defences, only to find that some other authority in a contiguous area had, for one reason or another, done relatively little so that at the time of the flood, although their own defences withstood the strain, those in the area below or above had broken down and their people suffered almost as much as if they had carried out no defence work at all. That is one example, and I am sure there are many others in the minds of anyone examining this problem. Certainly it was very much in our minds when considering the Coast Protection Act. It is vital in any work, even temporary work, carried out today to ensure that there is proper consultation.
We are dealing with a very large area of the coastline, including many districts which in the past have made use of the Coast Protection Act. Nearly two years ago, on 24th July, 1951, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), who has always been active in this matter, asked the Minister:
what is the total amount allocated to local authorities in respect of coast protection; and what authorities have benefited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 43.]
In reply a long list of some 33 authorities was given, many of which come within


this particular area of coastline. As a matter of fact, the list included the Borough Council of Aldeburgh, referred to by hon. Members opposite in an earlier debate.
Our anxiety is that in this emergency Bill we can find no reference to coast protection authorities and their rights and duties under the Bill. There seems to me a grave danger of a conflict of duty between one and the other. On reading the Bill I cannot make up my mind whether it is intended that the river boards shall be concerned merely with the sort of areas with which in the past they have always been concerned—that is, mainly the low-lying agricultural land; particularly land round the mouths of the rivers—and whether it is still intended to leave outside the scope of the Bill the built-up areas, particularly coastal resorts, which have more particularly been the concern of the Coast Protection Act.
It is possible, as I read the Bill, to say it is intended that river boards should be the sole authority for the purpose of this emergency work. Whichever it is, we must have reference in the Bill to the work of coast protection authorities; we must ensure that there is proper consultation. I remember very keenly the debates we had on just that sort of issue when the Coast Protection Act was going through the House. We took perhaps over-scrupulous precautions to ensure that there was full consultation and discussion with all authorities who might possibly be concerned when the coast protection authorities were being set up. Indeed, it is that very care which we took that has perhaps made some parts of the procedure under the Act as cumbrous as it is, which may have made for some difficulty in its operation.
While I am not saying necessarily that river boards should not carry out this work—tributes have been paid, and rightly, from both sides of the House to the work done both during the emergency and before—I insist that if we are to make a good job of this work, the cost of which it is admitted on all sides will be very heavy, then we must ensure that the work is done in full consultation with all those who have been busy on it for the last two or three years.
I cannot believe that this matter has not been thought of. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

Housing and Local Government in his place. If his presence means what I hope it does, it means that there has been full consultation between at any rate two Departments, and that they have some reason for the absence in this Bill of any reference to coast protection authorities. This matter will need very much fuller consideration in Committee. We are very anxious that this should not be delayed, and if there were any points on the question of consultation about which the Government felt they might put down some Amendments themselves, I am sure it would speed the progress of the Bill if they could be put down at an early stage so that full consideration could be given to them.
It is worth remembering that even in 1951 over £2 million was authorised for coast protection work under the Coast Protection Act. We therefore feel it is a matter of very real concern that in these proposals some notice has not been taken of those bodies. The maintenance work and the cost of it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, who quite rightly pointed out that there are difficulties in ensuring that full and proper maintenance of defence works is carried out, and it could be a fair criticism of the Coast Protection Act that in at any rate that instance it was by no means certain —if I may put it that way—that coast protection authorities would be able to get grants to help them with the ordinary maintenance work of coast protection.
That may need reconsideration, and I am sure we shall be willing to consider it sympathetically. But I quite agree that it is no use constructing some of these defences, involving a great deal of cost not only in money but also sometimes in scarce materials, such as steel and concrete, if they are to be allowed to deteriorate for lack of sufficient funds in the coffers of local authorities. That also needs careful consideration.
I can assure the Minister that the provisions dealing with the position of the individual and his rights must be given further and rather careful consideration. Even though this is a temporary Measure intended to last for only a short while, we should be lacking in our duties if we allowed such wide powers as are provided in this Bill to go by without much fuller


consideration than has so far been given to them.
I think I ought to put right the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), who seemed to think it was impossible for a grant of 100 per cent. to be given to a coast protection authority for coast protection work. It is not impossible. The question is quite open. The financial provisions in the Act enable a grant of any size to be made by the Government, and it is as well that that should be remembered.
I will not refer to the agricultural provisions. We agree about the vital necessity for some provisions in that respect, although the sums of the acreage contributions which are suggested are staggering and no doubt will need to be examined before they can be fully approved by the House. We are as anxious as anybody to ensure the rapid passage of the Bill. We will welcome any effort by the Minister to put down his Amendments as early as possible so that we may have a full chance to consider them, thus helping with the progress of the Bill.
With those words I add to the general chorus of welcome and express the hope that the Bill may be passed in a short time.

7.31 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have been gratified by the response which the Bill has received. It is an extremely complicated Measure, but no one has suggested that it is not necessary. A large number of points have been raised. I make no complaint of that, because it is right that a Bill of this character should be carefully and properly examined, but it places a difficult task on my shoulders in seeking to reply to them adequately without speaking at least until 10 o'clock. Indeed, the debate has covered a wide field and one or two remarks which have been made have surprised me. I must admit that I thought one of the chief troubles about which they complained in Salford was not the state of the river but the fog which interfered with their sporting activities.
Perhaps I may return to the Bill. I want to say at the outset that we appreciate the attitude which the Opposition

are taking towards it. I agree that it is right that a Bill of this character should be closely examined and we shall welcome their co-operation in making it as good a Bill as possible. In that connection, I want to stress at the outset a point made by my right hon. Friend. If our sea defences are to be in a state to resist next winter's storms we have to get an immense amount of work done before the winter—work which, as my right hon. Friend said, would normally take 10 to 15 years.
That means that if we are to have a chance of carrying out that work, we must reduce the normal procedure of consultations under statutory provisions, of service of notices, of public inquiries and things of that sort, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) recognises the necessity in such a Bill as this of altering that customary procedure. Again, I think it is recognised everywhere that a grave responsibility rests upon the river boards of repairing an extensive part of our coastline in a very short time. No one doubts that all those engaged in the task —river boards, local authorities under the Coast Protection Act and workmen and contractors, with the memory of the events of 31st January in their minds, will do their utmost to prevent a repetition during the storms of next winter.
It is surely our task, as far as we can, to facilitate the execution of the work which must be done. In the Bill we seek to remove some of the obstacles which the river boards would encounter in the present state of the law. Some of those obstacles do not impede the action of local authorities under the Coast Protection Act of 1949. The right hon. Member for Belper referred to Section 5 (6) of that Act. The river boards have no such power; that power is confined to the local authorities and we are satisfied that local authorities under the Coast Protection Act have sufficient statutory powers to be able to do what is required. The river boards have not. That is the reason for Part I of the Bill.
The function of the river board and the function of the local authority under the Coast Protection Act are quite separate and distinct, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) said in what I thought was an excellent speech. The river boards are responsible


for sea defences and drainage, so as to prevent the land from being inundated. The Coast Protection Act provides for steps being taken, as the Title of the Act recites, to prevent coast erosion. The objects are separate. Under the Coast Protection Act there is provision for consultation, it is true, but in approaching this problem we must bear in mind that the authorities have separate tasks and objectives and separate statutory powers. It is true that there is no provision in the Bill placing a statutory obligation on the river boards to consult local authorities.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Coast Protection Act deals only with erosion, but that is not so. The Short Title refers to erosion and encroachment by the sea and Section 4 provides that a coast protection authority may deal with any land. Whatever view the hon. and learned Gentleman takes, surely he agrees at least that there must be provision for consultation.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman compares the River Boards Act and the Coast Protection Act he will agree that I am right and that the primary object—and I said object— of the Coast Protection Act is to prevent erosion and—although I omitted this word as I was trying to be as short as possible—encroachment by the sea. One of the main objects of the river boards is to prevent land from being flooded by the sea and to deal with drainage. A long history is involved. There is that difference of task confronting them.
I come to the main point which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) made, that of consultation. I listened to his final remarks, and it seemed to me, if I may say so with respect, that he was contemplating a long period of time in which to work out a code or a revision of the River Boards Act—which was passed not very long ago —and was thinking that unless we made some statutory provisions placing upon river boards an obligation to consult coast protection authorities, there would be no consultation. I am not prepared to accept that for a moment. I understand that the coast protection authorities and the river boards are working together in the closest possible co-operation at the moment—and that is what is required.
I do not think we should put into the Act a number of obligations upon river boards to consult local authorities, possibly town planning authorities and possibly a wide number of other bodies. We should not put that obligation into a statute, because I believe it might have very serious effects in preventing the commencement of work which must be commenced soon if it is to be completed. That is the reason. I think it is a very valid argument myself for a Bill of this character, for dealing with this particular task, that there should be no statutory obligation for consultation.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that it has validity only in respect of a temporary Measure, but not in the long run?

The Solicitor-General: We discuss in this House so many Bills in which we provide for consultation, and so on, that I think one is, perhaps, a little apt now to forget, in considering this complicated Measure, that the work has to be done by next September, and that we have to cut away some of the normal procedure. A great deal of the work has to be done by the willing co-operation and agreement of all concerned, the owners and occupiers of land, and others. Moreover, the people living in this area, and outside this area, are interested in this tremendous problem. However, we must have power to deal with the few people who may, perhaps, be obstinate or recalcitrant, because we cannot have sea defences delayed on that account.
My right hon. Friend said that the people who are pushed about by this Bill will or may be the people who were pushed about by the sea. None of us wants to see anyone pushed about by this Bill if that can possibly be avoided. What we want to do is to stop people being pushed around by the sea next winter. That is the point. I would ask the House to bear in mind that if these works are to be done by September, they must be started very soon. That means that entry has to be made upon land either for getting material to make these banks, or for making access roads by which to bring up materials with which to widen or strengthen the existing banks.
Under the River Boards Act, 1948, power was given for compulsory acquisition. Under the 1946 Act advertisements have to be published two successive


weeks, time has to be given for the lodging of objections, and opportunity given for the objector to be heard by someone representing the Minister or at a public inquiry; the report of the person representing the Minister has to be made, and consideration to that report given by the Minister. It is no exaggeration to say that in even a simple case where there is an objection it may take not less than about 13 weeks to get approval for the acquisition. We cannot afford to spend 13 weeks on business of that kind this summer. There is so much to be done we cannot afford the risks of delay that would follow taking the procedure laid down by the 1948 Act. That is really the reason for this first part of this Bill.
I would emphasise that Part I is really divided into two parts. We have the first point of bank construction, earth getting, and access roads when combined with construction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper asked me what was the real meaning of "combined with construction." I referred him to the definition, which says that when combined with construction it means adjacent or contiguous to. I thought he would follow that, but if he does not know the distinction between "adjacent" and "contiguous to," may I tell him that "contiguous" means touching and "adjacent" means nearby?

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to consider the matter in the spirit he does, but it was not the spirit in which I approached it. Let us have a look at the interpretation Clause. It says:
In this Act references to earth getting combined with bank construction, or to access road works so combined, are to such getting or works on land on, or contiguous or adjacent to, a site of bank construction, and being, in the case of access road works, works for meeting transport requirements of doing the bank construction….
How far away do those works for meeting transport requirements have to be to be still "adjacent to"? It seems to me they may be quite a distance away.

The Solicitor-General: I was not dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's intervention facetiously. I was trying to introduce a little light element into it. In reading that definition he has left out the governing words:
… subject of such construction.

That is the test. If we are making a bank, widening a bank, then we may have the road running alongside the bank for bringing up the material. That will clearly come within the scope. If we are bringing materials from immediately behind the bank, that again will come within the scope. What will not come within the scope is material from some distance away. I hope I have now been able to throw sufficient light on that point as to be able to pass on to the next.
We can really say that that part applies to the process of bank construction, the road alongside, and the getting of the materials. When the work is of that category the Minister gives his authority and the work can be started straight away. The river board must notify the owners and the occupiers of the work that that is to be done. Entry can then be made on the land, once the authority is given. Admission to buildings will be with 24 hours' notice, and after a month's notice for the evacuation of a residence.
Considerable criticism was uttered in respect of that by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). I do not think it was observed that this power of entering buildings or vacating buildings is limited strictly to cases where those buildings are really required for bank construction. We may have a bank to be laid down involving the demolition of a building or part of a house. Indeed, there have been cases in which people have actually built on top of the sea defences. If we are to improve those defences we have first to remove the buildings.
We have provided 24 hours' notice in respect of any buildings, and a month's notice in the case of a residence. It is a point we can consider in Committee, but it would be difficult, I believe, at first sight, to prolong for longer periods the notice without running the risk of holding up the construction of the sea defences which have got to be made in such a very limited time.

Mr. Braine: I think we are all seized of the importance of speed in this case. I was envisaging the possibility of somebody's being required to yield up possession without any guarantee of rehousing. The Minister of Housing and


Local Government stated in answer to a supplementary question on 24th March:
My officers and I … cannot—and I think ought not to be able to—give orders to local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 639.]
There should be some guarantee, I suggest, if people are pushed out of their homes, quite rightly, and speedily, that they will be rehoused.

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that the pushing of people out of their homes is likely to occur very often, because I doubt very much whether people are still occupying places which were actually built on top of the sea walls. That is a point which we can look at. I would rather for the moment confine my remarks to the contents of the Bill. I want to stress that we want to get these powers of entry immediately for the making of the sea defences, and if we do, many of what are called safeguards are removed.
For the earth getting work combined with bank construction and for bank construction the removal of those safeguards will enable the work to be started much earlier and the owner of the land can require the Board to purchase com-pulsorily or alternatively to pay compensation. The sole criterion must be where is the best place to put those sea defences, and in determining that regard must be given not only to protecting particular localities, but to the effect further down the coast. Full regard will be given to that in determining the line of the sea defences which have to be erected.
With regard to the getting of earth from some distance away, hon. Members will see that there are some of the usual safeguards about that but not all. There has got to be an advertisement and an opportunity to make objections. The Minister will consider the objections, but it is true that there is not to be a public inquiry. Time will not permit. I have taken up so much time dealing with this particular point, and I hope to be able to satisfy the House that we have had regard for individual interests and rights as far as we can, but we have also had regard to the urgent necessity of getting this work started soon. Under this Bill entry can be effected speedily and the work will get ahead.
I want to make this general observation. While it is proper and right for us to examine the provisions of this Bill in Committee, let us bear in mind that it gives the authority to enter upon the land to get these new defences started. We should not delay in fulfilling our part of this task so that we can perform our part in the reconstitution of our sea defences.
I have been asked a considerable number of points and I will try to deal quite shortly with them, although I fear it may be rather disconnected. The right hon. Member for Belper talked about the Clause excluding people from the site. We do not want to do it more than is necessary, but we anticipate that there will be the usual flow of visitors to the East Coast this summer and that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay will be able to spend his usual summer holiday on Canvey Island.

Mr. Braine: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will visit us.

The Solicitor-General: I had not been asked, but I thank my hon. Friend.
It is because of that that we have to take the power to exclude members of the public from where the work is actually proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not take the usual powers under Clause 3. I have dealt with that I hope to his satisfaction. Then he asked why there was provision to enable the authorisation period to be extended. I can give the answer to that in one sentence. We do not know what damage will be done next winter. We hope no damage will be done, but it would be unwise if, when we are taking statutory power, we did not take the power to extend the period in which authorisation can be given.
On the subject of finance, the right hon. Gentleman put a question about the date. We believe in incentives, and it is before September that we must get the bulk of this work done if we can. That is the main reason for fixing that date and I hope it will be possible to have the work done by then. Then he made the suggestion that we should send out an explanatory leaflet. We will certainly consider that, because we think it is very important that the people in those areas which are affected by this work should know not only why this is being done


but also their rights, the possibilities of their getting compensation, and to what extent their ordinary, daily lives are likely to be affected.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) raised a point about Snettisham. I thought it was a very interesting speech which he made about shingle banks, which I gather are behind the sea defences as they now exist. In cases like that it may be that something can be done under the Town and Country Planning Act if it were proper for the authorities to do something. It is always possible for action to be brought for public nuisance where someone starts endangering our sea defences by taking them away.
My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the point of tidying up after the floods. I do not think that falls within the provisions of this Bill, although my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that in granting authorisation under the Bill he can impose conditions so as to secure that there will be a tidying up by contractors and others engaged on the completion of this work.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) referred to the position of the Smallburgh Rural District Council. I have a letter here from the clerk of that council, whom I happen to know very well, and I think I am right in saying that their anxieties existed before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made his statement on the matter and the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman referred was passed before then.

Mr. Gooch: Their anxiety has been further allayed by a letter from the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) approves of the method we propose in Part II for securing the restoration of the land rather than having it requisitioned. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) express the same view. The view we have come to is that it is much more likely to get this land back into proper use with

the farmer remaining in possession on his own land. He knows his land best, and if the Government makes advice available to him, as he wants it, and assistance on the lines proposed, then I feel it is much better to leave him there rather than dispossess him temporarily and convert him into a salaried servant for the time being.

Mr. G. Brown: So that there is no misunderstanding on this matter—it is a matter of opinion and I hold the other view—we should know what we are doing. No one suggested taking the farmer off the land. The Minister of Agriculture knows something about opencast land, and he will agree that in that instance, which is somewhat similar to this, dispossession turned out to be the better way of dealing with it. It is purely a mechanical business, but we should know where we are.

The Solicitor-General: He becomes a salaried servant for the time being, but our view at present is that he should remain on the land. This is pure mechanics to arrive at the objective we both want, namely, to get the land back into production as quickly as possible. Our view at the moment is that it is likely to work best if the farmer remains in possession. I hope I have covered most of the points that have been raised.

Mr. Gooch: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point I made about unemployed farm labourers and the priority for them on sea defence work?

The Solicitor-General: I understand that a special circular has been sent out to river boards asking them to employ farm workers from the areas that have been flooded. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I have been provided with any amount of material on points which do not fall within the Law Officers' province, and if I dealt with them all in detail this would be a very long and wearisome speech.
I have now dealt with the main points raised and I will conclude by expressing our thanks for the way in which everyone has approached this complicated Measure. While recognising the need for speed, we will give close consideration to any suggestions that are put forward between now and the Committee


stage, and in Committee we will carefully consider any others. We believe that the Bill is essential, if we are to tackle the problem this summer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — COASTAL FLOODING (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for work for defence against sea water in localities affected by the flood of January, 1953, and to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural land flooded with salt water, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of:—

(a) grants to river boards in respect of expenditure incurred by them in, or in connection with or in consequence of, the exercise of powers conferred on them by or under the said Act;
(b) expenditure authorised by the said Act in making acreage payments for the purpose of promoting the rehabilitation of agricultural land that has been flooded with salt water;
(c) any increase attributable to provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I of the local Government Act, 1948, or under section forty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or in the sums payable out of the Road Fund.—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

8.2 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I should like to be quite sure that this Financial Resolution is drawn in such a way that we can raise the question of how long the 100 per cent. grant should apply and whether or not it should be coterminous with the period of the Bill. There is nothing in the Resolution to indicate it, and we want to be sure that we shall be free to raise such points in the Committee.

Sir T. Dugdale: It is certainly my intention that that should be in order, but I cannot give an absolute assurance. It is the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to this point. At first glance, and from an amateur point of view, I cannot see why it should not be

raised. Does the right hon. Gentleman think, having read through the Financial Resolution, that there is anything?

Mr. Brown: I am willing to go on talking for a bit to give the right hon. Gentleman time to turn from an amateur into a professional. My guess is that the Financial Resolution is all right, but I fear what may happen when we get into Committee upstairs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman now has become a professional and can clear up the point.

Sir T. Dugdale: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that I understand that everything is quite in order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LEASEHOLD PROPERTY ACT AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) ACT EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I must apologise for what is technically known as "The Short Title" of the Bill. It is neither so short nor so graceful as I should have liked, but everyone will agree that it describes the Bill clearly and explains that we are legislating in a single Bill for Scotland. England and Wales.
The object of the Bill is to prolong the temporary legislation on the subject of leaseholds which was passed in 1951 and which is due to expire in a few weeks' time. The background and the statutory provisions are different in the different countries, and I will deal with them separately. I will first deal with England and Wales.
The final Report of the Leasehold Committee was published in June, 1950. Our predecessors, the Government of the day, introduced in November, 1950, the Bill that became the temporary Act of 1951. Right hon. Gentlemen explained that the issues raised by the Report were difficult and that it would take some time to prepare their proposals for permanent legislation. Their Bill was intended to hold


the position until the proposals were ready. I assume that they counted on being able, if they remained in office, to pass a permanent Act into law by Midsummer, 1953. Her Majesty's Government, in common with everyone who has had to consider the matter, agree that the issues involved are difficult.
Perhaps I may be tangential for a moment. It is rather grimly amusing to read on page 116 of the English Report the heading, "Quiet Enjoyment." I hasten to assure the non-legal Members of the House that this is a legal term of art and has nothing to do with the state of mind of the reader of the Report.
Everyone would agree that a major permanent Measure in this complicated and technical sphere must be a difficult understaking. Therefore I make no apology for not being ready, only some 15 months after coming into office, to present a Bill. Everyone would agree— I am not making a party point of this matter—that it would be doubtful, even if we had introduced a Bill at the beginning of this Session, whether we could have got it through by midsummer, which is the necessary time for the English Bill. Therefore, everyone will agree that it is essential to extend the life of the temporary Act.
To hon. Gentlemen who have not had an opportunity of giving great study to the matter, I would point out that we have made a great deal of progress towards the stage of introducing permanent legislation. We have considered the subject, and have put forward our conclusions in the form of a White Paper which is there as the background to this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced last Thursday, arrangements have been made for us to have a full debate on the White Paper after Easter. Therefore I am not going into that matter at all today. That is the tacit understanding with which we approach the Bill now before us. We wanted to make clear our intentions and to show that the temporary legislation will not be continued indefinitely.
Perhaps I might come to the actual content of the Bill, and first of all deal with Clause 1 (1). The Act of 1951 which we are extending came into force on 24th June, 1951. Its provisions are

due to expire after "two years beginning with the commencement of the Act," that is, on 23rd June, 1953. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill is designed to extend that period until Christmas, 1954. If the Bill had simply substituted "three and a half years "for" two years" the period would have expired 24 hours before the beginning of the Christmas quarter day; so Clause I must substitute for references to the period of two years beginning with the commencement of the Act of 1951, references to the period beginning with the commencement of that Act and ending with 24th December, 1954.
We have chosen this period of grace rather than midsummer for two main reasons. The permanent Bill will inevitably be long and complex, and it might not be possible for this House and the other place to pass it through all its stages by midsummer, 1954, if it is to receive proper consideration. I would remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Bill for the 1951 Act, which was a simpler standstill affair, was introduced on 21st November, 1950, and did not receive the Royal Assent until 22nd June, 1951. The second reason will, I hope, commend itself to the House, namely, that it will be fairer to everyone concerned if the temporary Act remains in being for a short period after the details of the permanent legislation have been finally settled. That lets everyone who is interested in it have time to digest these permanent provisions.
I do not think I need weary the House with a detailed discussion of the subsections. If I may take the general point in Clause 1, I would remind the House that Section 1 of the 1951 Act provided that long leases—that is, over 21 years —of residential property occupied by the lessee or a member of his family, which would expire at any time between 24th June, 1951, and 23rd June, 1953, would be automatically continued until the end of that period.
The effect of the present Bill would be, first, that any leases expiring during that period would be continued until Christmas, 1954, instead of midsummer, 1953; secondly, that any long leases that satisfy the conditions of the 1951 Act, and are due to expire between 24th June, 1953, and Christmas, 1954, would be automatically continued until the latter date.


In very much the same way the Bill would continue for the extended period of protection all the other provisions of the 1951 Act.
The remaining subsections of Clause 1 deal with necessary technical provisions of a consequential nature. Subsection (2) deals with actions for breach of covenant, subsection (3) with the time limit for applications under Part II relating to shops, and subsection (4) with holding over. I have elaborate notes ready for dealing with any of these points upon which anyone may want information, but it is not fair to the House to go into them unless there is a specific request for information.
Now may I ask the House to turn to the Scottish provisions? The Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1951, is due to expire on 9th May, 1953, and we propose, by Clause 2 of this Bill, to extend it until the term of Martinmas of 1954. For the information of any benighted Sassenachs who happen to be listening, Martinmas is 11th November.
When the Bill of 1951 was introduced, we were told that it was intended only to maintain the status quo for building leases until the Secretary of State had been able to consider the report of a committee which he intended to appoint to inquire into certain aspects of the law relating to building and other leases in Scotland. That committee reported on 29th July, 1952, and in a recent White Paper the Government announced their decision to accept the recommendations of the committee and to introduce legislation to give effect to those recommendations which needed legislative sanction.
We considered that the permanent legislation should be passed as soon as practicable, but it was clearly impossible to do this between the end of July last and 9th May next, and so an extension of the 1951 Act is inevitable. We are sorry that there should be this necessity, but at least it has the advantage of enabling us to learn the views of Parliament, and of opinion in Scotland generally, before we proceed to draft the detailed provisions of the permanent Bill. The Government hope to be able to introduce a Scottish Bill, and pass it into law, during next Session. The period for which the 1951 Act is to be extended has been fixed accordingly.
We have chosen Martinmas, 1954, as the terminal date rather than 9th May, 1954, for the same reasons; because of the danger of the legislation being delayed and because we want to give some time for practitioners and others to appreciate the effect of the new Act. The difference in the date between the Scottish provision and that for England and Wales is because it will be best for those leases which will not be statutorily convertible to end on a Scottish legal term.
The House will see that there are also provisions for what those of us who are not fortunate enough to be trained in Scottish law would call questions of breach of covenant and which in Scottish law have the delightful nomenclature of "irritancies." There is also a word— which, I hope the House will forgive me for saying, gave me immense pleasure —in the last line of page 2 of the Bill which reads as follows:
terminating at an ish falling on or after the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-three …
I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will bear me out that I am right, in thinking that an "ish" is a "tacit relocation."

Mr. John Wheatley: No.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is the definition of it given in Section 5 (a) of the Act of 1951. I happened to look up that point. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the Scottish Act of 1951, he will find that it says:
Any reference to the ish shall, in relation to a lease continued by tacit relocation, be construed as a reference to the date to which the lease has, at the commencement of this Act, been so continued;

Mr. Wheatley: "Ish" is the date of the termination of the lease.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In this case it is not tacit relocation; it refers to the termination on tacit relocation?

Mr. Wheatley: Yes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry if I did not put it clearly enough. It reminded me of the unfortunate broadcast after the removal of the Stone of Destiny in which an English broadcaster referred to the fact that the Stone of Destiny had been taken by Edward "ist." It took us


quite a long time in Scotland to find out to which monarch the reference was made.
Having cleared that point, I was saying to the House that there is a similar provision for dealing with irritancies and with holding over, and then there is the provision to which I have already referred, the Short Title of the Bill.
This debate is concerned with maintaining the position until we come to the discussion of both White Papers. Then everyone in all parts of the House will be able to express their views and I am sure we shall have a most interesting debate. I hope the House will feel that I have indicated the problem with which we have to deal and the methods by which we are dealing with it, and that hon. Members will give this Bill a Second Reading.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. John Wheatley: In so far as the Government have not been able or seen fit to introduce legislation of a permanent nature, we on this side will support the Bill which is now before the House. We are, however, very sorry indeed, having regard to the importance of the subject, that the Government have not found it possible to introduce legislation of a permanent character on this very vexed question. It is a very important matter and we on this side, who are strongly in favour of leasehold enfranchisement, are sorry that permanent legislation has not been introduced and that the Government are resorting to the expedient of continuing the temporary legislation for a further period.
We are also sorry that the Government have decided to introduce the Bill and to have its Second Reading before we have had the opportunity of debating the White Papers. That seems rather to be putting the cart before the horse. The justification for continuing the temporary legislation depends on whether there was not a case for immediate permanent legislation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am quite ready to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views. It was, however, the intention, had business not been interrupted, to have the debate in one and to have a discussion on the White Papers when we were discussing the Bill. I do

not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think that the Government desired to prevent that, but unfortunate matters have meant a rearrangement.

Mr. Wheatley: While I fully accept that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that in the event we are putting the cart before the horse. That is unfortunate because we really have to circumscribe the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. In so far as we are not able to have permanent legislation, in the interests of all concerned it is desirable that the existing temporary legislation should be continued until such time as we can have permanent legislation.
I should like an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point which was implicit in his speech: namely, that we will have a Bill of a permanent nature introduced at the first possible opportunity and that we will not require to wait until the "fag end," if I might so describe it, of this temporary Measure before we get legislation of a permanent character.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe indicated assent.

Mr. Wheatley: I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that proposition.
In the circumstances. I do not propose to say very much. I do not think that we on this side can accept that in the time at their disposal the Government could not have introduced legislation of a permanent nature, particularly having regard to the views expressed by senior members of the Government when in Opposition and when the Government of which I was a member were trying to put through the temporary legislation which is now being extended.
I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Minister of State at the Foreign Office decrying the provisions of the temporary legislation. He said that the then Bill did nothing to clear the jungle and merely constituted a "house freeze," and that
it is likely to add further complications to an already complicated situation and to make confusion worse confounded. The opportunity has been lost for giving immediate effect to some of the non-controversial matters suggested in the Report of the Leasehold Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 398.]


In the case of the English provisions the Government had the Report of the Leasehold Committee, and it was not a matter, as in the Scottish case, where the Committee reported only in July of last year. Therefore, the Government had not only the views but, no doubt, the expert opinion of the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, as well as the other legal advice that is available to them. And yet the Minister of State obviously thought that it was disastrous to have this legislation. Therefore I should have thought it was even more disastrous to carry it on in the form in which it at present appears on the Statute Book.
The Solicitor-General, who was with us until recently but has understandably gone away, because he was fully engaged in the last Measure and has gone, no doubt, to get some well deserved sustenance, said of the temporary Bill which we introduced:
…if the Bill is extended beyond two years, its extension will, in my opinion, have deplorable consequences.
and he asked for an undertaking that it would
not be extended by the Government for more than the two years which is provided in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 468.]
I should have thought that with that mass of legal opinion in the Government, rather than extend the provisions of the temporary Bill the Government would have been at great pains to produce a Bill of their own making, dealing with their solution, which may, of course, not be our solution, of this problem of leasehold. Instead, however, the worst fears of those two learned Gentlemen, apparently, have come to pass and the Act is being extended.
Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain why, having regard to the views of his party when in Opposition about the undesirability of extending the Act beyond the two years for which it was provided, he has resorted to this expedient of continuing it virtually for another period of that nature. The two learned Gentlemen to whom I have referred were speaking officially for the Conservative Party on that occasion, and speaking with all the authority of their party behind them.
Instead of occupying the time of the House with other Measures, to which I need not refer but which took up a great

deal of time in the deliberations of the House, it would have been much more desirable, having regard to the social problems which a leasehold Bill is necessary to solve, that the Government should have framed a Bill and found Parliamentary time for a Bill of that nature.
When we turn to the Scottish angle we find that the same opinion existed. While it be true that the English Committee reported long before the Scottish Committee, which only reported in July, 1952, I think it will be agreed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland that the problem in Scotland is not so complicated. Therefore, the difficulty of preparing legislation as far as Scotland is concerned —which would of course require to be separate legislation—would not be very great. We wonder what the delay is there because representatives of the Conservative Party, speaking on the Scottish Measure, were equally trenchant in their criticism.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) asked, "Why have the Bill at all? "But now we are having it extended. The noble Lord who is now the Minister of State for the Scottish Office stated that all we were getting was a moratorium, and wanted permanent legislation if the situation warranted it rather than legislation of a temporary nature. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office then asked why we should have this temporary Measure and why the Government could not make up their mind.

Mr. John Rankin: They are all in the dock.

Mr. Wheatley: May I ask the same question: why cannot the Government make up their mind now?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Gal-braith): We have made up our mind; we told you.

Mr. Wheatley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "We have made up our mind; we have told you," but this Committee reported in July, 1952. The Scottish Grand Committee, which is specially designed to discuss legislation of a peculiarly Scottish nature, until this morning had not met since 10th July, 1952,


to deal with any Government Bill, or any Government business. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that we did not have ample time in the Scottish Grand Committee to deal both with the Second Reading and Committee stages of a Scottish Bill dealing with leaseholds?
In these circumstances I think we ought to have some explanation why it is that, although a Scottish Bill would have been less complicated, dealing with a less difficult subject in a more limited sphere, having regard to the fact that Her Majesty's Government have not seen fit to utilise the services of the Scottish Grand Committee from July to the beginning of April, we could not have permanent legislation on this subject in so far as it affects Scotland, particularly having regard to the criticisms that were levelled against the temporary legislation by the leaders of the Conservative Party when they were in Opposition.
May I add to my list of criticisms what was said by the present Lord Advocate? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] When he was in Opposition, he said:
The Bill offers no real solution to the problem with which it is proposed to cope.
He went on to say that it
will do nothing constructive …it will introduce anomalies and new distinctions."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee,  7th February, 1951; c. 1909.]
I am not, of course, accepting that these criticisms were justified, but they were made by people who now are responsible Ministers in Her Majesty's Government. If they thought they were well founded, despite the fact that we did not think they were, one would have thought they would be at great pains to introduce legislation to remove from the Statute Book this temporary Measure and have it replaced by a permanent Measure which would cope permanently with the problems and remove what they conceived to be the difficulties, anomalies and dangers.
I think we are entitled to hear why it is that this expedient has been resorted to and why it is that the Government, knowing full well the importance of this problem in both countries, have taken refuge in continuing legislation rather than facing the difficulties which have to be faced in permanent legislation and creating a new code of leasehold enfranchise-

ment which would get rid of some of the social anomalies and injustices that characterise our legal code at present.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke (Hampstead): I will not venture on the question of leasehold enfranchisement, because I think that by common consent it was agreed we should debate that on a future occasion rather than tonight. Similarly, I will not risk myself in the quicksands of Scottish affairs, still less of Scottish legislation which uses a strange language that looks to some of us as if the printer had left the initial letter off one of the words.
As regards the English law, we all join with the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) in regretting that it should not have been possible to supersede the temporary Act of 1950 by permanent legislation before it runs out in June of this year. I am sure that the Government regret it, because no Government enjoys introducing temporary legislation which takes up valuable days, when the work has to be done over again at the time when permanent legislation is introduced. But it certainly does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to taunt or twit the Home Secretary with delay in making up his mind. After all, it was in June, 1949, that we had a unanimous interim Report from the Leasehold Committee, and 17 months later, in November, 1950, the Government of which he was a Member brought forward temporary legislation which indicated that they were still unable to make up their minds.
Not only that, but I think we were informed that so long ago as November, 1948, the then Chairman of the Leasehold Committee communicated to the then Lord Chancellor the unanimous view of the Committee that legislation was required to give the protection of the Rent Acts to the occupying lessee who found himself not protected when the lease ran out. Two whole years passed before the Labour Government took any action to remedy that situation, and when the action did come it was only in temporary form.
The difference in this case is that for the first time a Bill of a temporary nature has been accompanied by a statement of the Government's permanent intentions.


The only thing, therefore, that we can argue about, so far as this Bill is concerned, is whether it would conceivably have proved possible to put on the Statute Book before the end of the present Session permanent legislation based on the outline given in the White Paper published in January.
I, too, regret that is not possible, because I think we all want permanent legislation as soon as we can get it. But it must be clear to everyone that we have reached a stage where the enactment of permanent legislation in this Sesssion would be impracticable; or, if we attempted it, it would be very bad legislation, because this is an exceedingly complicated subject. I fancy that all of us who may find ourselves serving on the Standing Committee which eventually will examine the permanent legislation would wish the draftsmen to have full time to prepare it, because there will be sufficient to argue about at that stage without having to spend time discussing faults in the drafting.
I do not propose, in these circumstances, to debate the White Paper now, or to suggest any other action which should have been taken. I rejoice that at last, in considering this subject, we have proposals before us for permanent legislation. Some people may feel themselves aggrieved in that the White Paper holds out to certain classes of tenants a prospect of improved security which will not be available to them until the second Bill reaches the Statute Book. That happens because in this case the Government—I think wisely—have announced their intentions as early as possible. The desires of those people could not have been met, unless we had been able somehow to find means of passing permanent legislation in this Session.
I welcome the fact that this White Paper was published at what I believe was the earliest possible moment, thereby giving us ample time to study the form the permanent legislation is to take. All of us present this evening may wish to speak more extensively in the subsequent debate, but I suggest that now we cannot do better than give the Bill a Second Reading, send it to a Committee, and hope that we may get it on the Statute Book speedily in order to clear the decks for something much more important.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I had not intended to take part in this debate until I heard what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) had to say. I think that the position should be made perfectly clear. What he said was rather illogical. We are very keen about this question of leasehold reform and have been seeking methods to give an opportunity to a leaseholder to continue his lease on reasonable terms, or to obtain enfranchisement of the leasehold. We were exploring such possibilities even when we knew that, with the small majority we had in the House, we should be open to attacks from hon. Gentlemen opposite who were not prepared to grant these concessions. We did introduce temporary measures which the hon. Member for Hampstead now regards as something not to our credit.
On the other hand, reading the election addresses of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would have imagined that they had everything so cut and dried that all that was needed was to put them in office. They would have the cost of living reduced and everything so planned for the future to such an extent that they had only to walk immediately into office and put everything right. They had ample time in which to consider this proposition, and the hon. Member for Hampstead should read their speeches, quite apart from those referred to by my right hon. Friend, when he would see for himself that it was not a question of knowing what was to be done.
Hon. Members opposite knew exactly what ought to be done and how to do it, but, when they came into office, they immediately forgot all that they had known before and had to start de novo. Not only is that the case in this particular matter, but it has been the case in practically all the legislation which has come before the House since they came into office. They ridiculed everything that was done by us, although we put this country in a solid position. They ridiculed all that in the same way as they ridiculed the temporary Measure which we brought in in order to get something prepared for the future.
Today, of course, it is a different matter. They say to us, "You did this, and we can do the same, although you


were wrong at that time. We have had two years in which to think it over, and we are ready to do it, because we now discover that you were right when you introduced it." That kind of argument on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite will not do at all. It will not do for them to say that we were wrong, then introduce something precisely similar two years later, after they have had time to think about it, and still say that we were wrong. They cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
While we accept this Bill, I hope that consideration will be given to the questions which have been raised in the White Paper, and also that amendments will be made to that White Paper. I hope we shall be able to have the matter debated very soon after we return after the Easter Recess and that we shall hear of further consideration on the point of enfranchisement, because the main point here is that leaseholders do not know where they are; they are doubtful about what is to happen to their leases. In my view, there is only one real way of dealing with this matter, and that is to give them the opportunity of picking up the freeholds in consequence of the fact that they themselves and their predecessors gave these freeholds the value at which they now stand.
It is true that we are to discuss this matter later, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead and others who think similarly will not come to the House and speak as the hon. Gentleman has done tonight in attempting to cast aspersions upon us when we introduced a Measure of a kind which they now support. The hon. Gentleman says that, after two years, or the period during which the Government have been in office, they have still not had an opportunity of considering the problem properly, but that will not do, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know it. The truth is that he knows that his party do not know where they stand in these matters, and, consequently, they are adopting what we have prepared, because it is the very best thing they can adopt for the time being.
I hope that, when the White Paper is discussed, we shall have the opportunity of settling once and for all, for the benefit of leaseholders, the very important problem of security of tenure for those who

built up that security themselves and who are most entitled to retain it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: It is not my purpose to enter into the polemics projected into the debate by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), except to say that as a Scotsman representing a Scottish constituency which is interested in this subject I think it necessary to put on record one or two obervations which have already been communicated to the Scottish Office.
In my constituency there are the Stone-house Leaseholders' Association who made representations to the Scottish Leases Committee. It was with slight surprise that we found that the Government endorsed in its entirety the report of that Committee. Accordingly, we welcomed the delay afforded by the Government's intention to prolong the existing legislation so that the new legislation to be brought in, we hope next Session, may take due account of certain reservations which it is my duty as Member for Lanark to express in regard to certain passages in the Guthrie Report on Scottish Leases.
The Stonehouse Leaseholders' Association have from the beginning drawn attention to two particular points. They consider that the valuation on conversion to feu should be on the basis, not of vacant possession, but of a sitting tenancy, and, secondly, that the conversion right should apply not only to the leaseholder's own dwelling, but to all the dwelling houses covered by the lease. At present, it is only my purpose to mention that, as it were, in passing in order to put it on record and to give notice that when we come to debate the White Papers—for there are two—I shall have certain reservations and arguments to adduce with regard to paragraphs 67 and 68 of the Guthrie Report.
In the knowledge that these representations will receive the consideration which I hope it will be felt they deserve, and with the confidence that this legislation with which we are confronted tonight will enable a more thorough study of the problems to be made, I, on behalf of the Stonehouse Leaseholders' Association, who are particularly interested in this matter in Scotland, welcome this Bill and wish it a rapid and cordial passage.

8.48 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can only speak with the leave of the House, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) asked me certain questions, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words. I will first answer the non-controversial interrogatory of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who asked me to give an assurance that we would at the earliest possible moment introduce legislation, and that it would not be left to the fag end of the period.
It is certainly our intention to introduce it at the earliest possible moment, and, as I said in my speech, taking the English date as Christmas, 1954, and the Scottish date as Martinmas, 1954, that is designed to leave a period after the permanent legislation has become effective when the legal profession and other professions concerned with the subject matter of the Bill will have time to turn over the permanent provisions before they apply. I think that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
The second question—not so non-controversial—which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me was, why not introduce a Bill? There are various counter accusations and arguments, the fringe of which has been touched upon most moderately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). I do not intend to pursue that course; I simply want to state quite frankly my own position when I took over this problem after the present Government came into office.
The Report had been published on the date that I have already stated. The previous Government had introduced the standstill Bill, but they had not developed their policy, apart from an Election adherence, not worked out, to leasehold enfranchisement. Their policy had never been incorporated in a White Paper, and we had no reasonable statement of that policy. Therefore, I had to work out the policy for Her Majesty's present advisers.
I took slightly over a year to do that and published a White Paper, giving a detailed account of our permanent policy, in January of this year. I leave it to those who have considered the matter to say whether 14 months is an

excessively long period in which to work out the policy. It is the view of Her Majesty's present advisers that a White Paper should receive time for consideration, and, indeed, hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate indicated their intention to deal with that argument.
I point out the problem. I do not want to go beyond doing that. The problem of translating the White Paper into legislation involves, first of all, the residential problem, secondly, the problem of all business premises and not merely shops as are dealt with in the standstill Act, and thirdly, the problem of making consequential improvements in the law in its cognate fields.

Mr. Janner: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about having to take a year in formulating policy, but the Report was published in 1950. My contention is that he and his party had ample time, up to the time of the Election when they were returned, in which to decide on the policy which they wanted.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The policy of protection by Rent Act tenancy for the leaseholder was one which had been put forward by my party before, and it has been worked out in pre-legislative form by myself. That is the policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East need only read the reports of party conferences and he will find it developed there by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in one speech after another. I am putting the matter to serious judgment. I am trying to avoid the party battle and the party shuttlecock.
The White Paper deals with the intensely important and interesting question of leasehold enfranchisement at great length and it argues seriously the point of view put forward by the minority. It does not matter whether hon. Members agree or not, the argument is seriously met and a serious attempt is made to controvert it. We are only arguing for postponement after formulating our views. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite asked for postponement before they formulated their views. That is the point which my right hon. Friends took up at the time. I say no more because, judging from the foretaste which we have


had tonight, we are to have an interesting debate on the White Paper, to which I look forward very much.
I should like to say a word about the Scottish Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East felt that the position was not so serious, even from his point of view.

Mr. Wheatley: I did not think that it was not serious. I said it was more limited.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is more limited because at the time that the 1951 Bill was put forward the Committee had not even been appointed. The Committee has been appointed, it reported last July, and the attitude of the Government has been made clear in the White Paper. I will not discuss the White Paper. I initiated this debate by promising that I would not do so and I eschew it.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) shows that there are sections of opinion who want to discuss the White Paper and seek to make Amendments in the policy incorporated in it. In fact, I had thought in my innocence that the Scottish Grand Committee was the reserve for non-controversial matters—

Mr. Wheatley: May I explain that "non-controversial matters" in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee is merely a euphemistic expression?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I gathered that. Once, with more courage than wisdom, I was included in the Scottish Grand Committee, and I can only think that the euphemism mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was almost as great as when the Greeks called the Black Sea the hospitable sea because of the treatment of strangers who happened to go there. That being so, I gather that I cannot impute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the fair assumption that this is a non-controversial matter in any ordinary sense, even in the Scottish Grand Committee. There is the position. Everyone knows what our policy is with respect to the Scottish leasehold provisions, that we accept the Guthrie Report and we intend to legislate on that matter.
I feel that the stricture of not including the matter in this Session's programme cannot be very seriously pressed. I want to make that clear, that that is the distinction on which we stand, that we have put forward our policy and, as I say, we look forward to defending that policy when the debate comes. Apart from that, I should like to thank the House for treating with such reticence the actual provisions in the Bill, and I hope that it may now be given a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL TREATMENT (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Wills.]

8.58 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the personal case of one of my constituents. Its discussion at this time cannot, unfortunately, help him, but I hope that the recital of the facts of the case may help to stimulate the Ministry of Health to avoid a similar occurrence in future.
The facts are that my constituent, Mr. Frederick Maw, who was 55, and lived at 42, Westmorland Street, Carlisle, left work on Friday, 22nd August, 1952, and travelled to London on holiday to stay with his wife's sister in London. Six days later, on 28th August, he had a sudden collapse—some kind of stroke—and was admitted to Lambeth Hospital in a dangerous condition. His wife was summoned to London from Carlisle. She visited him in the hospital on the following day and arranged to continue to stay in London with her sister to be near her husband.
Mr. Maw was on the special visiting list, as he was dangerously ill, and his wife was able to visit him frequently. I should make it clear at once that Mrs. Maw had no complaint of the treatment which her husband received while he was a patient in that hospital. He was, however, discharged on 22nd September; travelled by train to Carlisle in the care of his wife; was admitted to the City General Hospital in Carlisle on the


following day, and died one week later, on 29th September. I understand that the layman's explanation of the cause of death was progressive paralysis of the spine.
Now I come to my complaint of the treatment which this unfortunate man received. First, I assert that he was not fit to be discharged from the hospital, or to undertake the journey from that hospital to Carlisle—a total journey of well over 300 miles. No arrangements of any kind were made by the hospital authorities for his transport and no nursing care was provided for him during his transit home.
His wife had to arrange transport from the hospital at South Lambeth to Euston Station at very short notice. She reserved two seats in the train and had to care for her husband during the train journey of seven hours. He was in a desperately ill condition and on reaching Carlisle she had to convey him and the luggage from the station to their home. I want to speak in as restrained and factual a way as possible with regard to the details of the journey, but it cannot be denied that it must have been a very great ordeal for the man's wife.
Her husband's throat was paralysed and he was totally unable to communicate with her in any way. He could not walk unaided. He had no control over the muscles of his throat, by reason of the paralysis, which was centred at the base of his skull, and so he could not swallow his saliva and he dribbled continuously. In addition, he was incontinent, and during the journey he caused himself, his wife and the other passengers in the compartment very great embarrassment, to which I think they should not have been subjected.
On reaching home his wife found that he was suffering from bed sores, probably caused by the fortnight or so that he had been in hospital in London. Those bed sores, which were on his ankle and hip, must have caused him intense pain. I am not suggesting—and his widow has never suggested—that the cause of his death was the fact that he had to undertake this quite distressing journey, but I do suggest that the bare recital of the facts which I have placed before the House makes it abundantly clear that this man was not in a fit condition for discharge from the hospital and ought

not to have been made to undertake that journey.
I raised the matter immediately it was brought to my notice, very shortly after the man's death. I wanted—as most hon. Members would want—to spare the relatives any public recital of these matters. I did not proceed by way of a Question on the Order Paper; I raised the matter in correspondence with the Minister, in order that undue publicity should not be given to the case, for the reasons I have stated.
I wrote to the Minister on 21st October, 1952, and his reply was dated 3rd December, 1952. In it, he argued a number of points. He stated, first, that the patient had been discharged at the request of his wife and, secondly, that the patient was not incontinent; and he made the point that if a brother-in-law of Mr. Maw could drive Mr. Maw to Euston Station, there was no need for the provision of an ambulance.
There were discrepancies in this reply— this delayed reply, I think I can fairly describe it—and I therefore placed those arguments before the widow and went into the circumstances more fully. I wrote to the Minister again on 2nd January, 1953, sending him my constituent's denial of the statement contained in the Minister's letter. The Minister's reply to that letter did not reach me until 16th February. I have spoken of two letters, but between the times which I have mentioned I had reminded the Minister that I was awaiting his reply.
It is not unfair to suggest, I feel, that this considerable delay in answering the requests of a Member of this House for information in connection with a case of this kind, this conduct on the part of the Minister, is deserving of the very serious consideration of the House. I suggest that the delay was completely unreasonable for this reason: a Member of the House is entitled to approach a Minister in the way which I adopted—by means of correspondence, in order to avoid publicity— in the expectation that, if he is convinced that there is at least a prima facie case for investigation, the Minister will without delay make the full particulars of the case available to the hon. Member so that the reasonable requests of a constituent may be fully met and satisfied.
The Minister may point to the administrative machine of the hospital services


and suggest that it is responsible in some measure for the fact that it took from 21st October, 1952, until the final letter which I received from the Minister on 16th February this year—a lapse of months—before I was able to obtain the information which I required.
I followed that correspondence by a Question which I placed on the Order Paper on 12th March. That Question was by no means satisfactorily answered, which is the reason I have brought the matter before the House tonight. I suggest that the Minister ought to seek means of satisfying the legitimate requests of a Member for information along the lines I have indicated and of giving full satisfaction with the minimum of delay. He ought to be able to speed up the administrative machine so that a Member need not wait months to have his reasonable requests for information met. As is plain from the bare recital of the facts I have given, this was a perfectly legitimate request, and it ought not to be necessary to keep a Member waiting so long for information in such circumstances.
Now to deal with the actual replies of the Minister. Here, again, I think I have a reasonable case for complaint. The Minister's reply to my Oral Question on 12th March suggested that I was wrong in one particular and that the hospital authorities had reserved seats on the train for this unfortunate patient. On that point the Minister is proved to be wrong. I have the facts, and I advised the Minister accordingly so that he might investigate them before replying to this debate. The Minister also, at a later stage, admitted that on another point his reply to my submission was incorrect.
I said earlier that this patient was still incontinent on discharge, and I referred to the distress and embarrassment caused to his wife by that circumstance. That was denied by the Minister in the first place, but it was later admitted. It is admitted also that the man was discharged with bed sores. It is suggested by the Minister that a nurse escort should have been made available for this exceptional journey.
As to the point that the Minister made that the discharge from hospital had been made at the request of Mrs. Maw, the

lady has continuously and strenuously denied that. Her account of the circumstances is corroborated by three of her relatives resident here in London who accompanied her on her regular visits to her husband in the hospital. Here is a point that the Parliamentary Secretary may take note of in that connection. I imagine that if this patient had been discharged in the care of his wife at her request, the hospital authorities would have asked her to sign a form of consent. Such a form was not presented, and such a form was certainly not signed by Mrs. Maw.
Mrs. Maw, who had no nursing experience of any kind, had to care for her husband in the condition I have described during a very long journey which lasted more than seven hours. It placed upon her a responsibility that few of us would care to undertake. She had to rely entirely on her own resources. Her husband was discharged on Monday. The day before Mrs. Maw asked her brother-in-law, at very short notice, as I have said, to convey her husband to Euston Station from the hospital. Mrs. Maw booked the seats on the train. That is now corroborated, although it was earlier denied by the Department.
Mr. Maw reached Carlisle late in the evening, and was taken home, and his own doctor saw him the following day and ordered his immediate removal to hospital. I do suggest most forcibly to the Minister that this fact, that the man was at that time obviously in need of hospital treatment, supports my contention that he was unfit to undertake the journey to Carlisle, and unfit for discharge.
I think that this is a case which, after months of correspondence, deserves a searching inquiry. I suggested to the Minister in a letter and by means of a Question in the House that this inquiry ought to be held. But the Minister all along has stubbornly resisted the obvious conclusion to be drawn from these facts, which I have recited to the House. As I have already remarked, I have been factual and restrained in the way I have presented them.
If it were necessary to discharge this patient from hospital—and I do not admit that it was—every possible care should have been taken by the hospital authorities to convey him from that hospital to


the station. The hospital authority could perfectly well have undertaken his careful conveyance by rail from Euston to Carlisle, which is open to them to do in a way that is not open to the ordinary travelling passenger by rail, who cannot command exceptional facilities. I also suggest that the hospital could quite easily have arranged for a nurse escort during that journey and for conveyance by ambulance from Carlisle station to Carlisle Hospital.
All along I have asked myself why this case was dealt with in this way. Is it because there is such a desperate need for economy in the transport and other services connected with hospital treatment when a case of this kind occurs? From my own knowledge of the circumstances that obtain in the county of Cumberland, I hesitate to suggest it would not have been quite easy to make ambulance conveyance available to the station. That is my experience in the more sparsely populated areas in Cumberland.
Whatever economies may be considered necessary by the Minister—and his statement today gives me no very great hope —I suggest that he would have the support of public opinion if he put in a claim that the hospital services and the needs of hospital patients should come first. This is a national hospital service. It is not a service in which London hospitals are kept for London patients, or Carlisle hospitals are kept for Carlisle patients. Every patient, wherever he may come from, is entitled to receive treatment. Every patient ought to be assured on his entry into hospital that the same high standards will prevail wherever he may be. That is the least that we can expect from the hospital service.
I indicated earlier that the Minister's announcement today may be a reason for the unfortunate happening in connection with this particular case. Directing my remarks to the Minister, may I say that it is evident that he thinks that parts of the National Health Service—and that includes the hospital service—can be subject to economies. The announcement which he made today announcing the setting up of a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Guillebaud, suggests that he envisages economies can be made in parts of the service.
Ever since this case was brought to my notice, six months ago, I have sought for

a reason to explain the extraordinarily bad treatment of this patient. It may be that the Minister thinks that the cost of the National Health Service takes up too much of the economic resources of the nation. That is the point of view he appeared to be expressing at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. I can fairly say that this case is completely unjustifiable on any grounds of economy, and I suggest again to the Parliamentary Secretary that if she can assure the House that this case is deserving of a formal inquiry, she should seriously consider making representations to the Minister that such cases ought not to be permitted to happen, because they weaken the confidence of patients in the hospital service.
We ought to endeavour to sustain confidence in that service by doing our utmost to prevent any possibility of treatment of this kind occurring again. All of us here, and anybody with knowledge of the hospital service, would pay a tribute of respect and affection to it, and to the staffs who are engaged in the service for the devotion and skill that they give to the people. We ought, therefore, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give a full and complete answer to the case that I have laid before the House tonight, in the interests of the service. I leave it there, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that I can receive from the Parliamentary Secretary what I want and what I hope she will be glad to give me.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I am grateful for the opportunity that the early ending of the previous debate gives me to follow one or two points that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) has raised. We all listened to the tragic case that he has outlined and to the valid point he raised as to whether or not there can be any connection between a case of this kind, if not this particular one, and the drive we hear about for the general reduction of expenditure in the National Health Service. He was certainly not alone in his anxiety when he heard, as the rest of us in this House heard, the announcement made by the Minister of Health today that a new committee is to be appointed, apparently to put forward proposals for a reduction in the Health Service. We should be lacking in our duty in this House if we did not take


the first available opportunity to make clear the dangers that this course involves.
There must be a good deal of misunderstanding about the cost of our Health Service. It seems to be evident that the Minister is accepting without question as a fact that it is costing far more than is necessary, and that great economies can be carried out without danger to the service and to the treatment provided for patients within it.
Naturally, we are anxious as to whether, in this drive for economy, we may not hear about countless more cases of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend and, of course, cases covering a much wider field. We cannot emphasise too strongly the fact that, far from the overall expenditure in the Health Service being too great, we must examine the point as to whether or not extra additional expenditure is not urgently required for the benefit of the community.
I would be the first to agree that economies can still be made in the Health Service, but we are all too well aware of the fields in which large sums of new expenditure are required. In fact, over these last few years, due to the imposition of an overall ceiling upon health expenditure, at the same time as costs have been rising, the services given within the service have had to fall. We are oppressed by the fact that as this becomes more severe, especially this year, the pressure upon every hospital authority to deal with rather less than its customary good will with individual cases is bound to grow. Where a hospital authority could take a risk in the expenditure of money on the kind of case to which my hon. Friend has referred, there will certainly be strong financial pressure on them to make the economy. Yet my hon. Friend is right to say that, unless hospitals are able to incur this kind of expenditure, the quality of the service can be endangered.
Because the costs of the service are rising, including food costs, the hospitals, like other sections of the service, are having to face all the time the need to cut down what they can provide, and this at a time when in our interests as a community we should expand many of the services that richly need expansion. What is more, there is a lot of loose talk as

though the total sums that we spend upon our Health Service were in some way astronomical and quite beyond our ability to pay.
Is that really true? No one has attempted to examine our total costs today as against the total costs of health care in the days before the Health Service was introduced. I challenge the hon. Lady or any one to say, bearing in mind the increased costs, whether we are indeed paying more today for our total health care than before the Health Service was introduced. It is a matter of very great doubt.
It is certainly true that we spend a much smaller percentage of our national income on health care than is done in America. While it may well be said that America is a rich country, it is just in countries like our own, which have very great economic difficulties, that a greater proportion of our resources may well need to be given to ensure the maintenance of a fit and effective population for all our economic needs.
Therefore, the hon. Lady need not be surprised that we should take this first opportunity to sound a note of very real warning about the announcement that was made by her Minister today. We can see before us the very real dangers of the service that has been built up and in which every Member might well have taken great pride being slowly and gradually whittled away until the great inspiration that it offered at one time may well become a matter of general derision in the House and in the country.
We know all too well the tragic position of hospitals that are not being given sufficient funds to enable them to maintain properly the fabric of the hospital buildings. As the years go by, and if not enough money is put into this work, we will be faced with enormous costs later on. There are great jobs of work that need to be done and which, in the interests of economy, ought to be carried out. I have great fears that if the present procedure is carried on, if we maintain this artificial ceiling that has been running for some four, if not five, years, we are in effect denying to the Health Service the finances that it must have if it is to develop properly.
Therefore, I say to the hon. Lady that, when she replies to this individual,


case, I hope she will bear in mind and take this message to the Minister: we regard this case as possibly the forerunner of very many that will come before the House if the present policy of her Minister is followed and if we are to see a steady diminution in the value of the services that the hospitals can perform.
At one time we could say to the world at large that we had a health and hospital service which was the pride of the world and which many people came to see and to watch at work. Are we sure that in the steps now being taken we may not be cutting off and destroying that great leadership that we offered to the world in the past and may not be endangering our whole position in the great field of health? I make this appeal to the hon. Lady to take this message to the Minister from this House, that he should think again about the announcement that he made this afternoon and ensure the protection of the service that he is there as Minister to protect.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I would not have intervened in this discussion but for the fact that I happen to be in close association with Lambeth where, at the moment, I occupy the position of mayor. I do not know the details of the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a full and adequate reply. I do know the hospital; I think I have visited every ward and spoken to every patient of that hospital within the last two or three months. I have no hesitation in saying that the hospital has a very good reputation in Lambeth.
My hon. Friend was most restrained. and I am glad that he did not indict the character of the hospital generally. I do not want to go into a general discussion of the statement made this afternoon. There will be opportunities for that, but I am concerned that this particular case should be cleared up because I am rather jealous of the reputation of this hospital. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a full and adequate reply and, if it should be necessary to have a full inquiry, I imagine the hospital would welcome it in the interests of its reputation and the

reputation of the National Health Service generally.

9.36 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Marcus Lipton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace) I can claim to have some close knowledge of this hospital. It happens to be in the borough of Lambeth, part of which I have the honour to represent in this House.
In addition to knowing the hospital well since I became the Member for the Brixton division of Lambeth, I can also claim, some time before the National Health Service came into operation, to have been an in-patient of this hospital. Therefore, because of pre-war and postwar knowledge of this hospital, I can corroborate what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East said. It is a good hospital with a very fine reputation and it is all the more necessary that that reputation should be maintained, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) pointed out, this unfortunate case has happened.
It is within our knowledge that from time to time mistakes take place in diagnosis, errors of judgment are committed by medical men, and, as a result of a combination of those circumstances, there is an unfortunate episode of this kind. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East, I am not fully acquainted with the details of this case. I do think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has a grievance arising from the delay with which the Ministry generally deal with inquiries of this kind.
I have had occasion in the past to take up one or two unfortunate cases of a similar character with the Ministry and it has struck me that an inordinate time elapses before the Ministry completes inquiries from the medical staff of the hospital concerned and other people. It would be in the public interest if the Parliamentary Secretary could assure the House that if and when the unfortunate necessity does arise of asking the Ministry to investigate a particular case, every possible endeavour will be made to see that the hon. Member raising the matter receives a reply. It is of supreme importance that the confidence of the public in our national hospital service should be maintained.
One way in which public confidence can be maintained is that when an unfortunate case of this kind occurs the Ministry should be at pains to ensure, both for the sake of the hon. Member concerned as well as, if not more so, for the sake of the relatives of the patient, that the speediest possible inquiry is made. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, irrespective of this unfortunate case, the reputation of the Lambeth Hospital is highly regarded by the Ministry; because such a statement will be welcomed by those who know of the fine work which this hospital has done and is doing.

9.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The House will agree that the general circumstances of this case are distressing and that a complaint concerning the death of an in-patient is a matter which requires our concern and sympathy. I would reiterate, as my right hon. Friend has done both in correspondence and at Question time in the House, the real sympathy we feel for Mr. Maw's widow and the keen regret that she has been caused this distress.
I would deal first with two points on which we are agreed. It is agreed that the patient was suffering from an incurable illness of which the medical staff had informed his relatives. They knew that he had only a very limited time to live. It was also agreed by the medical consultants, both at the Lambeth Hospital and at Carlisle General Hospital, that the train journey had nothing to do with Mr. Maw's death.
Now may I deal with the complaint about delay. As this Adjournment gives me the time, I should like to give the exact diary of proceedings concerning this inquiry. The hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend on 21st October. The letter was received and acknowledged on 22nd October. He will know that in a procedure of this kind the Ministry have immediately to contact the appropriate regional hospital board and in turn, in a matter of medical inquiry such as this, their senior administrative medical officer has to see that the proper inquiry is made at the hospital.
A reply from the hospital board not having been received by 6th November,

my right hon. Friend sent an interim reply to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) saying we were still awaiting the final report of the Lambeth Hospital. They had to make inquiries in some cases from people who had left the hospital and who had to be interviewed and their evidence obtained. In one case an almoner was in China. I do not think it quite fair to blame my right hon. Friend, because the 6½ week period does not represent the speed with which he dealt with the evidence.
On 10th November we received a report from the Lambeth Hospital Management Committee via the South-West Metropolitan Regional Board. We were still awaiting evidence from the Carlisle General Hospital, because it is obvious that we had to check not only Mr. Maw's condition on leaving but his condition on arrival at Carlisle and the medical opinion in Carlisle as to whether or not the journey had contributed in any way to his death. The report from Carlisle was not received until 29th November. On 3rd December my right hon. Friend sent his first full reply to the hon. Member for Carlisle.
It took 6½ weeks, but I would emphasise that not all the staff were available when the inquiries were made. The hospital management committee had to take longer than usual in order to obtain the evidence and the opinions from the consultants, the registrar, the almoner and some of the sisters. In comparison with the period of 6½ weeks, the hon. Member took 4½ weeks to get his constituents' reaction and a rebuttal of some of the statements in our letter, and, when one puts these two cases side by side, one case of direct check and the other one involving many channels and persons, we can see that it does not make our 6½ weeks look quite as bad as the hon. Gentleman made it out to be.
On 2nd January, the hon. Member for Carlisle wrote to my right hon. Friend and contested some of the statements in the Minister's letter. That letter was acknowledged on the 5th, and a further request was sent out again to Lambeth to check up and get the evidence on the spot. The reply from the Lambeth Hospital Management Committee, through the regional hospital board, was received by us on 5th February, and my right hon. Friend replied again to the


hon. Member for Carlisle on the 13th, and subsequently there were Questions in the House. I think it is only fair to give that time-table, because otherwise the suggestion was that my right hon. Friend took 6½ weeks in which to answer the original letter.
As to the points of conflict, there are four. First, there is the question of discharge from hospital and the delay, with which I have already dealt. There was the question of incontinence, the question of accommodation on the train, and, finally, the question of bed sores.
Mr. Maw was admitted to Lambeth Hospital on 28th August while he was on holiday in London. He was admitted with a lesion which was likely to end fatally, and this matter was discussed with the relatives, who were aware of it. He was in hospital for 25 days, and passed from a state, on admission, of near-incontinence and paralysis to one in which he was able to walk about the ward. This is the medical report and the evidence which we have had from the consultant and the registrar, and which has been confirmed by inquiries which we have made with the nursing staff. He was able to get about the ward and was also able to swallow, and, although he was not able to speak perfectly, he could, to an extent, make himself understood. He could understand simple questions, and could read the print, but not the writing, of some of the correspondence he received.
With regard to his continence, when he entered hospital he was regarded as incontinent during the period from about the 4th to the 12th. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Carlisle said, my right hon. Friend in his reply to the suggestion that the patient was incontinent on discharge, said that the hospital concerned had said that he was incontinent, and it is only fair to say that the hospital record shows that he was so only between the 4th and the 12th, and that his subsequent record in that respect was reasonably good.

Mr. Hargreaves: The Minister previously denied it.

Miss Homsby-Smith: The question which the hon. Member originally raised was that when Mr. Maw travelled he was incontinent, but my right hon. Friend said

that, when he travelled, he was not. The evidence which we have on admission to hospital was that he was incontinent. Here, we have the evidence from the registrar, from the consultant, the sister, and also evidence in the files of the Department. I regret to say that we are in direct conflict here, though we have on two occasions gone over all this with the responsible officers, with all the evidence at our disposal and that obtained by direct inquiries.
The hospital authorities maintained that Mr. Maw's family were anxious that he should go home. They knew that he had but a short span to live. They were on holiday in London and it is not unnatural that they felt that they would like to have him home. I am sorry that we are in conflict with the hon. Member on that evidence, but through all the discussions with Mrs. Maw and with Mr. Maw's niece, the officers concerned are quite firm that the family and relatives desired that Mr. Maw should go home.
In this respect, Mrs. Maw herself was interviewed by the consultant physician, by the registrar and by the house physician, who warned her of the patient's future poor outlook and advised her—he is very emphatic about this—to get in touch with her own doctor immediately on her arrival in Carlisle.
So far as the bed sore is concerned, this has never been denied. The ward sister mentioned to Mrs. Maw that her husband had a small bed sore on the sacrum and advised her how to treat it.
Next we come to the question of transport. In view of the relatives' desire that the patient should go home, consideration was given to the best form of transport. It was felt that an ambulance journey of 300 miles which, with reasonable stops, would have taken at least 12 hours, was out of the question and that a fast six-hour train to Carlisle on which seats had been booked was the best method of transport.
It is the duty of the medical officer concerned in a case to decide the form of transport on medical grounds. In this case, the doctor, on the information that he had from the almoner's department, was aware that private transport was being provided by a relative of Mrs. Maw, and, in fact, all the evidence we have assessed confirms that the almoner had


been told that a relative would be collecting Mr. Maw and would drive him to the station.
I cannot refute too strongly the quite unjust suggestion that has been made that this was the result of economy, and the attacks that have been made on my right hon. Friend. The ambulances were there, and the staff was there. There is no question that had an ambulance been required it could have been provided, and no question that had it been decided to send an escort then an escort from the hospital management committee group could have been provided.
There has been a misunderstanding, which I readily admit, over the question of tickets. Here we have been in difficulty. As I say, the almoner is now in the Far East and we have had difficulty in checking the records which we had from that department. My right hon. Friend, in his letter to the hon. Member for Carlisle of 13th February, said that reserved seats were obtained for the journey. That was according to the record we had, and I freely admit that we inferred from that—and the hospital, in fact, led us to believe it—that those seats had in fact been booked by the hospital.
As I say, I readily admit that they were not, in fact, booked by the hospital who probably took as the work of their almoner the record that seats were booked, when, in point of fact, Mrs. Maw did the booking and the almoner was informed that seats had been booked. We were wrong in assuming that the seats had been booked by the hospital, but it is on record that seats were booked.

Mr. Hargreaves: Mr. Hargreaves indicated dissent.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is on record in the hospital that seats were booked.

Mr. Hargreaves: I have the almoner's letter here.

Miss Homsby-Smith: I am not saying that the hospital booked them; I am saying that the almoner knew that seats had been booked. I admit that we were misled and that the seats were not booked by the hospital.
My right hon. Friend, in his reply to questions, said quite frankly that he

thought there were some errors of judgment on the part of the hospital, and in fact he has most closely inquired into this matter on two separate inquiries. Certain of the evidence which we had was challenged by the hon. Member. We have gone over the investigation and have had the closest questioning of the responsible officers concerned. The hospital acted within the letter of the law, but my right hon. Friend agrees—and he said so in his reply to the hon. Member's Parliamentary Question—that there should have been more welfare and humanity, in the interests of the patient, in the manner in which his discharge on leaving the hospital was conducted.
He said, and I am only too ready to confirm it tonight, that the hospital should have reserved a whole compartment for this patient. He has told the hospital that he considers that they have failed in their duty by not doing so. He has also stressed and told the hospital, as he has told the hon. Member, that they should have provided a nurse escort. He has brought these errors of judgment, as he considers them, to the notice of the management committee, and instructions have been sent to hospital authorities and all concerned so as to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, a recurrence of these unfortunate circumstances.
I assure the hon. Member that every factor connected with this case has been very fully investigated. We have scrutinised all the evidence available and the statements of the hospital management committee; and the senior medical officer has investigated it with all the officers concerned in this case. We do not believe that a formal inquiry would add anything to what has already been achieved. It would entail more reiteration of statements of facts long after the event, which is always difficult. Since inquiry would obviously have to be made on the other side it would also cause distress to Mr. Maw's relatives, and we feel doubtful whether it would in any way resolve some of the points of conflict. They are very difficult to establish in a time of loss with persons who perhaps had to make a difficult decision as to whether a patient, whom it was known had a short span of life, should go home or stay away from home and friends in hospital in London.
My right hon. Friend regrets as much as I do the unfortunate circumstances of the manner in which this journey was undertaken, but we do confirm that, so far as we have most deeply investigated this matter, the patient was taken out, we think quite rightly, in view of the special circumstances, by the relatives. We believe that the train journey did not contribute to Mr. Maw's death. I can only express, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, our deep regret to Mrs. Maw and the relatives for the distress caused by the carelessness, if I may say so, in respect of the journey from the hospital to the train and the fact that they did not have a compartment and an attendant during the journey.

Mr. Hargreaves: May I be permitted to ask the hon. Lady a question arising from her reply? This kind of argument and rebuttal has gone on for a long time. I should like to call her attention to the fact that a moment or so ago she argued with me about incontinence. I should like to refer her to her right hon. Friend's letter of 3rd December in which he said:
He was not incontinent in the ward.
That is a denial and I rebutted it. I suggested that the Minister was wrong, and at a later date he admitted that he was wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a second speech. He rose to ask a question.

Mr. Hargreaves: Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a further error in connection with the statement which she has submitted to us. The hon. Lady suggested—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member can conclude his remarks quickly, it will be in order. I do not desire in any way to limit his opportunity to speak, but he

must realise that he has already spoken once to this Motion.

Mr. Hargreaves: I wish to ask the hon. Lady to reconsider the question of the reservation of seats. I have here a letter signed by the almoner requesting Mrs. Maw to reserve seats. In those circumstances, can the hon. Lady reiterate the statement which she made a moment ago? This kind of to-and-fro argument has gone on for a long time.

Miss Homsby-Smith: May I deal first with the point about incontinence? It is fair to say that in that letter my right hon. Friend says that on admission to hospital Mr. Maw was very ill. He had a very considerable recovery a week later and he continued to make satisfactory progress, except that he was unable to speak, until his discharge on 22nd September. On 22nd September I understand that he could walk, read and write and swallow quite well, and although he could not speak, he could understand, and he was not incontinent in the ward. My argument is that from the 4th to the 12th the medical evidence is that he was incontinent. At that time, on the 22nd, when he was discharged, his continence was fairly good and I do not think that anything my right hon. Friend has said has been an attempt to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I think it honestly tallies with the medical record of the patient.
As far as the tickets are concerned, I have admitted that we were misled on the booking and that it was, in fact, done by Mrs. Maw. I do not think the letter refutes my subsequent statement that the almoner had recorded, because that letter was written to Mrs. Maw before she made the final arrangements for the discharge of the patient, and when she again saw the almoner she informed her that tickets were booked. It is recorded that seats were booked. I apologise for the fact that we were misled into thinking that the almoner had done it, but it is recorded that the seats were booked and I admit that they were booked by the relatives.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Ten o'Clock.